Auto insurance ripoff by GEICO

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 20:17:34 -0500, in misc.consumers.frugal-living DTJ
> wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:14:29 -0700, "fbloogyudsr"
> wrote:
>
>>FWIW, $3 million in blanket liability (in addition to auto and home
>>coverages) is around $2500 per year. Cheap if you have large assets
>>to protect.
>
>No way. I have a million dollar blanket that costs me less than $50 a
>year.


Is that what you pay to have it dry cleaned?

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Steven O. wrote:

> Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 01:32:47 GMT
> From: Steven O. >
> Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving, misc.consumers.frugal-living, misc.consumers,
> misc.legal
> Subject: Auto insurance ripoff by GEICO
>
> First of all, I'm not sure if it is entirely fair of me to single out
> GEICO. What I just experienced may be endemic to the entire insurance
> industy. Still, I am getting the shaft from GEICO, and part of what I
> want to ask is whether what I experienced does, in fact, occur with
> other insurance companies.
>
> Basically, after nearly 30 years of driving, I had my first real
> accident. Totally not my fault, I was stopped at a light, and the guy
> behind me must have been distracted -- he simply slammed into me doing
> about 20 miles an hour. That forced me into the car in front of me.
>
> Fortunately, I am basically fine (at least so far, but we'll see if my
> neck and back are still sore in two weeks). However, the rear and
> front bumpers of my car were messed up pretty good. The body was
> scrunched, just slightly. Now, several issues have come up with
> GEICO:
>
> 1. I have an older car (about 10 years old), and the book value is
> (according to GEICO) about $2000. GEICO also estimates the cost of
> the repair about a bit over $2000. They say they will not pay for the
> repairs, if the repairs cost more than the cost of the car. They have
> referred to my car as a "total loss", or something to that effect,
> even though in fact the car still runs well and could probably go for
> another five or ten years. (I maintain the car well.)
>
> So, First Question: Does this happen with other insurance companies,
> that they will not pay for repairs if the estimated repair costs are
> more than than the estimated value of the car?

Yep, happened to me long ago. State Farm. They gave me options: i) pay for
repairs up to value of the car, ii) leave the car with them and they give
me the check for the value of the car, iii) keep the car & sign settlement
and give me the same check. Very similar situation to yours.

> If this is routine, is it even possible to purchase a rider on
> insurance which says, in essence: "Even when the value of my car
> drops, you will guarentee to cover the repair costs, up to $X? (Where
> $X might be, say, $10,000.)

You really might be better off getting a new car. I've had several
problems (rear end like yours, then a deer jumped out in front of another
car of mine, did 2700 in damage, and it was never fixed properly. Door
didn't fit right, paint job went to crap 3 years later, and leak in
windsheild). The hidden damage that never gets detected and/or doesn't get
fixed right is common.

> 2. Now, GEICO will pay for what they say is the replacement value of
> the car, which I can then spend on whatever I want (such as, as much
> repairs as that will cover). However, GEICO has also told me that:
> (a) I need to bring in my title to my car, for them to make a copy of
> that.

To prove you are the owne

And...
> (b) I'll have to "sign something" before they will give me the check.

Probably a settlement

> And...
> (c) After accepting this check, they will no longer provide collision
> coverage for the car at all. (I can still get liability coverage.)

Because the hidden damage might contribute to future greater damage or
greater susseptibility to damage.

> Second Question: What's up with all this -- the copy of the title to
> my car, and the "something" they will make me sign, and dropping my
> collision coverage? Would other insurance companies do the same
> thing?

Yep, insurance is a racket.

> 3. The car in front of me was a very, very expensive car. Although
> the damage was minimal, the bumper on that thing could cost $100,000.
> (Well, not that much, but a lot.) On the other hand, the bozo who
> caused the collision (the one who hit me from behind) is apparently
> not rich, and has about $10,000 of coverage for other people's cars.
> So, GEICO is now saying they will not pay anything until they first
> make sure that his $10,000 coverage will cover both the check they
> write for me, and the check they write to the guy in front of me (the
> guy with the fancy car that I was pushed into).

Did you have uninsured motorist coverage? That is supposed to help (at
least).

> Third Question: Can GEICO withhold payment -- even though all parties
> have already admitted I'm not at fault -- because the guy who caused
> the accident might not have enough coverage?

Might be best to talk to your state insurance commissioner and read up in
consumer reports. Insurance companies can be assholes.

> Bottom line, I've paid GEICO good money for many years, never had an
> accident, and now when I finally need them, they are basically saying,
> "Our policies, plus our number crunching on your car and your
> accident, boil down to 'Get Lost'."

Repeat: insurance companies are assholes. Use google and try to find gripe
websites. There are surely many. There was one called www.allsnake.com or
..org, a rant on All State. You are not alone.

> Two final notes
> (A) All three parties involved are insured by GEICO, yet the GEICO
> people are acting as adversaries to each other, essentially
> representing (or failing to represent) their clients as if they were
> separate companies. If common sense prevailed here, you would think
> that the fact that all three parties have poured money into GEICO
> would make them realize the fairness of simply paying out what they
> owe -- taking care of all their customers. You would also think one
> person could oversee the entire process, but instead they got three
> people dickering with each other.

Repeat: insurance companies are assholes.

> (B) I asked GEICO if there was any person or committee within the
> company I could appeal to. The answer was, "Here is the phone number
> for the state insurance commissioner."

English translation: F___ You

> GEICO: "We're here 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year...
> to tell you to go jump in a lake."



> Comments, insight, and feedback are much appreciated. Maybe a final
> question: Is there any chance of my getting anywhere if I bring in my
> attorney? I don't want to spend more valuable money on the attorney,
> if it won't change anything.

Do talk to the insurance commisioner. Ralph Nader has a book:

"Winning the Insurance Game" by Ralph Nader and Wesley Smith, ISBN
1877961175, its a little old (1990) but the insurance game-BS hasn't
changed much since it was written. Quite cheap on amazon, other used book
venues. Check your local public library. Dealing with insurance crap is a
major pain these days and THEY just LOVE to stall their subscribers as
much as possible so they keep that premium revenue stream comming in, but
there is never any promise to settle with you by any deadline. Lots of
loopholes in the laws.

Good luck.

keith wrote:
>
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 18:59:16 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
>
> > keith wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 12:37:41 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
> >>
> >> > "C.H." wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 23:16:24 -0400, Magnulus wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Why the hell do insurance companies love to total cars? They don't seem
> >> >> > to realize that only walking away with 2k dollars to buy a 16K-20K dollar
> >> >> > car when you have a perfectly good (albeit damaged) car for 0 dollars is
> >> >> > bad.
> >> >>
> >> >> Because they give you approximately what you would pay for a used one in
> >> >> the same condition.
> >> >
> >> > That would be perfectly acceptable if the insurance company did the legwork,
> >> > found a selection of cars similar to yours and delivered them to your home or
> >> > office for you to make a selection.
> >>
> >> Come on, Bev! You don't pay for door service, so you're *not* going to
> >> get it. OTOH, often you can do quite well by insurance settlements.
> >> Shopping is the *CONSUMER's* job.
> >
> > What do you mean, "door service"?
>
> You just asked for them to bring a (perhaps more than) perfect
> replacement to your door so that you're not bothered looking for a
> replacement.

Exactly. Anything less is placing a clearly-unwanted burden on me.

> > The insurance company (AAA) of the bitch who hit me was responsible, not
> > my own liability-only company.
>
> Sure, it is their liability. So sue the bitch. You won't get much
> satisfaction, but if you want to go through the mill...

I got several $hundred I wouldn't have had otherwise and it didn't cost me
anything. I'd rather have had them do the hunting.

> > I would
> > have been happy if they'd let me hack off her little finger, but
> > NOOOOOO!
>
> Tell us how you *really* feel.

Well, I actually would have liked to saw it off with a bread knife, but I
didn't want to gross anybody out. Maybe a little amateur dental work, too...

> > I was paid for medical stuff and pain/suffering, but what I
> > really wanted was to not have to search the county for a 1980 Datsun 210
> > with low mileage, a new clutch, and total cleanliness on the bottom --
> > not steam-cleaning, just NO DIRT. I didn't believe such a thing was
> > possible until I looked under that car.
>
> Ok, you *are* asking for door service. The fact is that you often cannot
> replace what you had, exactly. What do you want? A _new_ one? As others
> have pointed out, you're going to fall somewhat short on this end.

Nope, just a used one as good as the one that was destroyed. I don't think
that's unreasonable.

> OTOH, you were compensated for your injury. Count yourself fortunate.
> What if "the bitch" had only $10K liability, as others here have said are
> their state minimums (shudder)?

I would have been OK. The medical stuff was for the MRI for my husband
because he was in the passenger seat and the doorjamb hit his head. I'm
pretty sure the total was less than $10K.

> > It was her liability policy and
> > it should have taken care of ALL my car problems, leaving me in the same
> > state I was before she plowed into me. If you ever want to sue an
> > insurance company in small claims court, make sure you get a real judge.
>
> Well, you can go to a real court and demand a jury trial. It might cost a
> nikel, but it _is_ your right.

I think I'd be willing to have a real judge decide, but not a magistrate --
otherwise known as a lawyer helping out for one reason or another.

--
Cheers,
Bev
================================================== ===========
"What's truly sad is that your vote counts the same as mine."
-- S. Brown

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:14:29 -0700, "fbloogyudsr"
> wrote:

>FWIW, $3 million in blanket liability (in addition to auto and home
>coverages) is around $2500 per year. Cheap if you have large assets
>to protect.

No way. I have a million dollar blanket that costs me less than $50 a
year.

AMEN, BROTHER! (I'm sure god will forgive me for top-posting just this
once...)

"Scott en Aztlán" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:31:21 -0700, The Real Bev
> > wrote:
>
> >keith wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 18:59:16 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
> >>
> >> > keith wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 12:37:41 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > "C.H." wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 23:16:24 -0400, Magnulus wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Why the hell do insurance companies love to total cars? They don't seem
> >> >> >> > to realize that only walking away with 2k dollars to buy a 16K-20K dollar
> >> >> >> > car when you have a perfectly good (albeit damaged) car for 0 dollars is
> >> >> >> > bad.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Because they give you approximately what you would pay for a used one in
> >> >> >> the same condition.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > That would be perfectly acceptable if the insurance company did the legwork,
> >> >> > found a selection of cars similar to yours and delivered them to your home or
> >> >> > office for you to make a selection.
> >> >>
> >> >> Come on, Bev! You don't pay for door service, so you're *not* going to
> >> >> get it. OTOH, often you can do quite well by insurance settlements.
> >> >> Shopping is the *CONSUMER's* job.
> >> >
> >> > What do you mean, "door service"?
> >>
> >> You just asked for them to bring a (perhaps more than) perfect
> >> replacement to your door so that you're not bothered looking for a
> >> replacement.
> >
> >Exactly. Anything less is placing a clearly-unwanted burden on me.
>
> Not only unwanted, but undeserved.
>
> I don't know how it became acceptable in our society for you to suffer
> a loss due to another driver's incompetence and never be made whole.
> In TV commercials (for Farmer's Insurance, IIRC), we see the accident
> that resulted in the car being destroyed being played in reverse: the
> red 1968 Camaro convertible flies up out of the ocean, jumps up on top
> of the cliff, and parks itself underneath the hand of the owner, who
> is leaning against it while his girlfriend takes a picture. And that's
> how it SHOULD be - everything should be as close to the way it was
> before your property was damaged as possible.
>
> You not only deserve to have your damaged vehicle replaced with a
> vehicle in as-good-or-better condition, you also deserve fair
> compensation for your time and inconevience while that replacement is
> procured AND that inconvenience needs to be minimized. That means they
> supply you with a rental car comparable to the one that was taken from
> you, but they also do the legwork to find replacement candidates and
> bring them to you for your approval. Forcing you to spend your
> personal time (or, even worse, take time off from work) to go shopping
> for a car and then never compensating you for that wasted time merely
> adds to your losses.
>
> Unlike the promises made in TV commercials, the reality is you're
> never going to be made whole after a car accident. The insurance
> company is going to try their damndest to pay you less than your car
> was worth; you're going to waste a lot of time fighting to get repaid,
> shopping for a car, and using alternate transportation.
>
> And we put up with it.
>
> >> > I was paid for medical stuff and pain/suffering, but what I
> >> > really wanted was to not have to search the county for a 1980 Datsun 210
> >> > with low mileage, a new clutch, and total cleanliness on the bottom --
> >> > not steam-cleaning, just NO DIRT. I didn't believe such a thing was
> >> > possible until I looked under that car.
> >>
> >> Ok, you *are* asking for door service. The fact is that you often cannot
> >> replace what you had, exactly. What do you want? A _new_ one? As others
> >> have pointed out, you're going to fall somewhat short on this end.
> >
> >Nope, just a used one as good as the one that was destroyed. I don't think
> >that's unreasonable.
>
> It's not - unless you work for an insurance company.

--
Cheers,
Bev
[] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []
If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.
--Revolution Books, New York, New York

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 18:55:32 -0700, Antipodean Bucket Farmer
> wrote:

>New idea for a "Reality" TeeVee show: Rod Speed and Bob
>Ward, locked in a room together.


Pathetic, really.



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 7.1

iQA/AwUBQnKx/wIk7T39FC4ZEQLLJwCfdLAhOHliuSqOPWxX7z7oGVAEJmQAn37 D
ogWjcwTF8AqJ/DlKMactfGwa
=VmoH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-john
wide-open at throttle dot info

~~~~~~~~
The time to repair the roof is when the sun is shining
- JFK
~~~~~~~~

wrote:
>
> On 27 Apr 2005 13:14:45 -0700, "Curtis CCR" >
> wrote:
>
> >Punitive damages and pain-and-suffering are unpredictable. When you
> >kill someone, the actual victim is not in court.
>
> Why not? Do they fet some sort of special treatment? They should be
> required to be in court.

I guess we have enough underemployed taxidermists to make this work. Could
the heirs choose how the deceased is mounted? Costume? Maybe a 'Chatty
Kathy' string that you pull to get random quotes... "Damn, doesn't that idiot
have any brakeAAAAGGGGHHHHHHH!" or "Where's the remote?" etc.

--
Cheers,
Bev
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooo
"Few skills are so well rewarded as the ability to convince
parasites that they are victims." --Thomas Sowell

Steven O. wrote:

> GEICO: "We're here 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year...
> to tell you to go jump in a lake."
>
> Comments, insight, and feedback are much appreciated. Maybe a final
> question: Is there any chance of my getting anywhere if I bring in my
> attorney? I don't want to spend more valuable money on the attorney,
> if it won't change anything.
>
>

It seems to me that You are not at fault and they have to do what
you want. Now if it were a raggedy POS and worn out, worth $2000 and the
repair would be $7000, then I would agree. Also, why are you billing
your ins co for a wreck caused by someone else?

--
There are no limits [to stupidity or kookdom], only extremes we haven't
reached yet.
- Quaestor

(Matthew Russotto) wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Garth Almgren > wrote:
>>Around 4/25/2005 9:10 AM, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>
>>> I just got a ticket in Philadelphia. Well, actually, drove
away
>>> from it while the revenuer was writing it up. Where the hell
was I
>>> supposed to park to unload 50" x 40" artwork, when all the
nearby
>>> spots fit into the above categories?
>>
>>How about the loading zones you mentioned, or is unloading in a
>>loading zone also prohibited? Wouldn't surprise me if that were
the
>>case...
>
> One loading zone was blocked by construction, the other by
someone
> parked in it. It was Saturday; I believe the latter loading zone
was
> actually legal to park.
>
> I have gotten a ticket for unloading in a loading zone before,
though
> it wasn't in Philadelphia. Fought it in court, judge called me a
liar
> in so many words.

I used to go to Phila to get punch cards from Wanamakers for
processing. If I got a parking ticket, my boss would pay it and
bill the company are part of doing business.

Granted this was a few (cough) years ago.

DYM

<Alan > wrote in message
...
> Rod Speed > wrote
>> <Alan > wrote
>>> Rod Speed > wrote
>>>> Arif Khokar > wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote:

>>>>>> And if the driver applys the brakes harder because he's just been rammed

>>>>> That probably won't be the case.

>>>> Bull****, its the natural reaction.

>>>>> Assuming the driver did not look in his rear view mirror and see that
>>>>> he was about to be rear ended, then the resulting acceleration from
>>>>> the impact coupled with the inertia of the driver's right lower extremity
>>>>> would actually force the leg back towards the driver's body.

>>>> Mindless stuff when the foot is applying pressure
>>>> to the brake pedal before he's rammed.

>>>>> This reduces the applied force on the brake pedal.

>>>> Nope, because it doesnt happen like that.

>>> Yes, it does.

>> No it doesnt.

>>> Simple fact.

>> Nothing like it.

>>> If the driver didn't know they were going to be rear-ended

>> You cant even assume that.

>>> they would release the brake

>> Nope, when you are applying force to the brake pedal, the natural
>> reaction is to press harder if the car gets slammed in the rear.

> Uh huh. YOu don't know you're going to get hit,

Sometimes you do, most obviously when you see the
vehicle bearing down on you in the rear vision mirror
at a speed that means its unlikely to be able to stop.

Its actually happened to me, I could see the clown driving the
taxi having a good oggle at some woman with a very short
miniskirt, not keeping track of what the traffic in front of him
as doing, and rammed me up the arse because he didnt.

> so your reaction comes AFTER you've already hit the car in front.

Your foot is ALREADY applying pressure to the brake pedal and
your instinctive reaction in that situation is to apply it harder, stupid.

> Remember, your car bangs forward, resulting in
> an instant release of pressure your foot is applying.

Bull****.

> Less brakes.

Nope.

> So, when you react, you stand on the brakes.
> Too late. You've already hit the car in front.

Wrong. As always.

> Really.

Nope.

>>> because they would move after the car did,

>> Nope, they move with the car, because the seat ensures that.

>>> so the car would roll.

>> Nope.

>>>>> Only when the driver is able to react to compensate and
>>>>> overcome the inertia will he actually press the brake harder.
>>
>>>> And that is automatic if he is already applying pressure to the brake
>>>> pedal.
>>
>>> No.
>>
>>Yep.
>>
>>> Most of the time when you ease to a stop, you don't
>>> have the brakes on enough to cause the car to skid.
>>
>>You dont know that with the extra pressure applied
>>after someone slams into the back of your car.
>>
>>> If hit from behind, your car would bounce forward.
>>
>>Depends entirely on the speed and the weight of the car behind.
>>
>>> Then, see the above comment, and
>>> realize that it would, actually, roll forward.
>>
>>Fraid not.
>>
>>And what matters is if it would move forward enough to HIT THE
>>CAR IN FRONT OF IT. Thats what was actually being discussed.
>>
>>>>> The reaction time will not be sufficient to lock up
>>>>> the tires before colliding with the vehicle in front.
>>
>>>> More bull**** when he's already locked the tires by applying the brake.
>>
>>> No.
>>
>>Yep.
>>
>>> Most of the time when you ease to a stop, you don't
>>> have the brakes on enough to cause the car to skid.
>>
>>You dont know that with the extra pressure applied
>>after someone slams into the back of your car.
>>
>>> If hit from behind, your car would bounce forward.
>>
>>Depends entirely on the speed and the weight of the car behind.
>>
>>> Then, see the above comment, and
>>> realize that it would, actually, roll forward.
>>
>>Fraid not.
>>
>>And what matters is if it would move forward enough to HIT THE
>>CAR IN FRONT OF IT. Thats what was actually being discussed.
>>
>>> Where did you learn about this stuff?
>>> In cooking school, or something?
>>
>>> Sheesh!
>>
>>Even you should be able to bull**** your way out of your
>>predicament better than that pathetic effort, Moorman.