DO YOU WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT GEICO? Karen Simpson; Lisa Fishman; Deborah Schmidt; Jeremy Conn

16th of Apr, 2010 by User497813

DO YOU WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT GEICO?
Karen Simpson; Lisa Fishman; Deborah Schmidt; Jeremy Connor Geico has the money to continuously bombard people with commercials. Do they figure things like this will not be seen? A complaint was sent to the Better Business Bureau. It included: Enclosed please find my feedback relating to claims experience with Geico. Enclosed are photos and physical evidence info which I believe clearly show that my version was obviously correct. Physical evidence does not lie no matter how many liars appear. A claims examiner named Karen Simpson paid the other driver 100% which was about $3700.00, Geico then put this on my driving record for seven years stating that I was 100% at fault. I complained to the NY Insurance Dept. about this examiner before the claim was paid. asking if I could be assigned someone more impartial. They spoke to a supervisor named Deborah Schmidt. The examiner then went on to pay 100% to the other party despite any material demonstrating that he was 100% at fault. I discussed the situation with multiple supervisors and they did not correct it. Other departments say they do not have authority over the claims department. I assume this is true only when they are acting in good faith. I have paid premiums to Geico for almost 10 years with no claims. I would think that they could properly analyze a claim when I do have one. The following is complainer's statement on the police report: " I was driving into Walmart shopping center-stopped at stop sign by Payless Shoes and inched forward to see what was behind the building on my right. As I was doing this a car came from my right- As his car was half way around the turn onto my road his fender scraped my bumper. There was sufficient room so that he did not have to scrape my car. He turned too close to my car. " The other driver , also insured by Geico, was 17. His statement on the report was: " I was driving and I was attempting to make a left hand turn when the other driver rolled through a stop sign. When I saw him I stopped in the middle of my turn and he kept moving forward and hit me. I also had the right of way. I had no stop sign. " First driver submitted the following points to the Geico claims department consistent with and in support of his version. Confirmed by photos of damage at scene: 1. About a dozen very long scratches can be seen at the point of impact consistent with the other car scraping me not my hitting him with my bumper corner once going forward. 2. my bumper corner is covered with rubber from other car's tire inconsistent with my hitting him going forward. It is consistent with his tire digging into my bumper as he turned. 3. There is rubber on the side of the bumper corner inconsistent with the position he describes. 4. If this were reenacted cars would not be in each other's path. I was turning right onto his road. He was turning left onto my road. You cannot go forward at this stop sign. A left turn would be leaving the lot which I had just entered a few feet down the road. This was confirmed by witness. 5. There is damage by the other car's door handle. This is inconsistent with me hitting him with my bumper corner going forward. Damage is too high. 6. I would have had a very long time to put on my brake before the cars got in the position he describes. First contact was between my driver side bumper corner and about an inch past his driver side door. He was coming from my right slowing for a turn and he says I was rolling. 7. Why would he stop in my path as he describes instead of continuing and getting out of my path? Could he have thought that it was to his advantage to say he was stopped? In a later statement to insurer he says he tried to go around me but I clipped him 8. Damage on his car started about an inch past his drivers door running past his tire. This is consistent with him scraping me as he was parallel to me making a turn into my road. Inconsistent with me hitting him once with the corner of my bumper going forward. Too long an area. 9. Both Geico appraiser who did estimate on my car and his supervisor said my car was stopped at point of impact and another car rubbed against it. They said this was due to lack of damage and compression. This was written on my Geico estimate. They considered this conclusive because they did not even reach the above items to consider. The Better Business Bureau submitted the above to Geico. Geico submitted the following answer completely ignoring and not responding to the above physical evidence. Relying on people who contradict the physical evidence. :Claim 019438000101013. -------------------- The accident was reported by our insured stating that he was driving into parking lot and stopped at stop sign. He was inching forward to see into the intersection when other driver cut his turn too close striking his vehicle.The other driver's statement was that he was making a left turn when other driver ran the stop sign hitting him. (this driver was also insured by Geico.) The police report cited first driver for failing to yield right of way as a contributing cause of the accident. An outside witness stated that first driver was driving erratically and went through stop sign and hit other vehicle. First driver was found 100% responsible by Geico. As a customer service we changed file to 66% at fault. If any additional information is needed contact Lisa Fishman Claims Supervisor at 800-645-7550 x5291. Very truly yours, Jeremy Connor, Regional Liability Director Complaining policyholder responded generally as follows again asking Geico to respond to the physical evidence. Reply included the following: This is in reply to the silly Geico response. As previously discussed I think this matter comes down to the physical evidence which they once again ignore. This matter will not be resolved in my opinion unless they give a reasonable explanation for each item of physical evidence which does not lie. The physical evidence remains regardless of how many liars appear or whatever personal problems any claims examiner has. What a shame. I was not "cited" for anything. The witness states that I was not going more than 4 miles per hour. Could someone explain how over $3000.00 of damage could be done at that speed? Geico's own adjuster put on my estimate that I was stopped and another car rubbed against mine. Prior to this I had a perfect driving record. The police saw there was nothing wrong with me. Why would I be driving erratically? When your dealing with people who will say anything its good to know that you have an insurance company that will step up to the plate and do the right thing. To resolve this matter I request a reasonable explanation of each item of physical evidence or changing it to not at fault.------------ The Better Business Bureau sent the above to Geico again requesting an explanation of the physical evidence. Geico sent the following response again blatantly ignoring the physical evidence.-------We have received your correspomdence requesting that we reconsider our liability position on this claim. As stated in our response policyholder was found 100% negligent for this loss based on our investigation . As a customer service to him Geico changed the liability on his file to 66%. We feel our handling of this matter was fair and accurate. Our position remains firm. If any additional information is needed please contact Lisa Fishman Claims Supervisor at 1-800-645-7550-x5291 Very truly yours, Jeremy Connor,, Regional Liability Director------- After the Insurance Department spoke to Geico they had ageed to pay 1/3 of policyholders damage. This seemed unusual when they already paid the other party 100%. They now call this a customer service. Driver could not accept this since he felt no way at fault. He therefore has not been paid for his damage and has not had his car repaired. It still states 100% at fault on his driving record. The NY Insurance Department has no power to do anything about how a company settles a claim no matter how ludicrous it is. Geico apparently knows this. The Insurance Department wrote a letter stating: "Our review of the matter involving two Geico insureds would indicate that 1st driver could be considered not at fault based on an examination of pictures of the vehicles involved in the accident. The damage to the adverse vehicle indicates the vehicle was in motion across the path of 1st drivers vehicle." Insurance Dept. complaint # 525200. This corresponds to what the Geico adjuster wrote on the estimate. The above is DC Better Business Bureau complaint # 35CS-849%. This Better Business Bureau where Geico is headquartered has them rated "F" for a large number of complaints and failing to respond to complaints. Companies such as Liberty Mutual and State Farm have "A" ratings at their headquarter locations. Since there were two Geico policyholders two separate examiners worked on the case one for each party's claim. Right before the claim was settled the examiner handling my claim against the other driver left Geico. abused from Woodbury, NY
Woodbury, New York

Track this Report 0 Comment | Post a Comment