[X]
Write ReviewJump to 
24
Helpful
Votes
Votes
Geico Corporation Complaint - Beware of GEICO "customer service". - Automobile Insurance
Automobile Insurance - Complaint
IOWA -- GEICO wrote and billed us for an insurance policy we did not want. We recently moved to a new state. We insured our two vehicles with GEICO in a decision partially based on their assurances of low premiums and "superior" customer service. We live very close to our worksites and elected to temporarily store one of our cars (a classic that is seldom driven anyway) with a relative in another state.
I properly updated our policy, triggering a "third-degree" treatment by GEICO. GEICO demanded personal (driving record, etc.)information about the relative who's involvement was to simply permit us to temporarily store our un-driven vehicle in a safe location. We were treated like uninsurable scum. When we declined to provide the relative's personal information, GEICO simply wrote a duplicate policy and billed us. We were not given an opportunity to decline or review the proposed coverage. The policy was simply written and billed. GEICO's action appeared to be retaliatory "If you don't provide information we want, when we want it, you'll be put in a position where it'll cost you dearly."
E-mail to the GEICO underwriter issuing the policy demanding its cancellation was not answered. I demanded, and was never provided with, the name of someone in management to whom I could complain about their staff writing a policy and billing for it without giving consumers an opportunity to review, accept, or decline a policy. Finally, I received an e-mail instructing me that the policy could only be cancelled with a telephone call...intended to be a GEICO opportunity to badger or instill fear into the consumer in a design to retain unhappy customers. When I finally reached a human to cancel the policy, the customer service representative attempted to reference an unrelated policy and began to lecture me about the consequences of "leaving the vehicle uninsured". The matter has been referred to our state insurance commission and to the Consumer Protection Division of our state Attorney General.
We believe the GEICO employee retaliated by writing a duplicate policy when only a short-term storage rider was indicated. If such coverage is not available, a simple e-mail from GEICO stating so would have been appropriate. Instead, it appears they simply attempted to double their income by writing a full policy (including emergency road service coverage!!!) for a vehicle in storage.
Because it appears GEICO's customer service reacts with a cold-blooded, primitive brain...perhaps the lizard mascot is appropriate. I can only imagine the nightmare of having them handle a claim.
I properly updated our policy, triggering a "third-degree" treatment by GEICO. GEICO demanded personal (driving record, etc.)information about the relative who's involvement was to simply permit us to temporarily store our un-driven vehicle in a safe location. We were treated like uninsurable scum. When we declined to provide the relative's personal information, GEICO simply wrote a duplicate policy and billed us. We were not given an opportunity to decline or review the proposed coverage. The policy was simply written and billed. GEICO's action appeared to be retaliatory "If you don't provide information we want, when we want it, you'll be put in a position where it'll cost you dearly."
E-mail to the GEICO underwriter issuing the policy demanding its cancellation was not answered. I demanded, and was never provided with, the name of someone in management to whom I could complain about their staff writing a policy and billing for it without giving consumers an opportunity to review, accept, or decline a policy. Finally, I received an e-mail instructing me that the policy could only be cancelled with a telephone call...intended to be a GEICO opportunity to badger or instill fear into the consumer in a design to retain unhappy customers. When I finally reached a human to cancel the policy, the customer service representative attempted to reference an unrelated policy and began to lecture me about the consequences of "leaving the vehicle uninsured". The matter has been referred to our state insurance commission and to the Consumer Protection Division of our state Attorney General.
We believe the GEICO employee retaliated by writing a duplicate policy when only a short-term storage rider was indicated. If such coverage is not available, a simple e-mail from GEICO stating so would have been appropriate. Instead, it appears they simply attempted to double their income by writing a full policy (including emergency road service coverage!!!) for a vehicle in storage.
Because it appears GEICO's customer service reacts with a cold-blooded, primitive brain...perhaps the lizard mascot is appropriate. I can only imagine the nightmare of having them handle a claim.
Comments:
Posted by Hugh_Jorgen on 2006-05-16:
You claim this car is a classic and you want to leave it with a third party in another state - out of your direct control. GEICO wanted information on where this car was going to be and who was going to have control of it - not an unreasonable request. As far as the unrequested policy - simply refuse to pay for it - they will cancel it right away. GEICO consistantly ranks at the top of consumer satisfaction surveys - I am surprised you didn't receive better service.
Posted by UrFriendlyPirate on 2006-05-16:
Was the secretary helpful?
Posted by Doc J on 2006-05-16:
At their face Hugh's comments appear well-reasoned. However, with nearly 40 years as an insurance consumer and, over the years, having exactly the same conditions applied to other policies counters that GEICO was being reasonable. We have stored other vehicles while we were overseas. An insured is obligated to provide information about the insurability of any vehicle. In a case where the vehicle is not operated by, or accessable to, the 3rd party, an inquiry as to whether the vehicle would be insured by the storing party (name and policy number) is entirely reasonable and appropriate. In this case, intrusive personal questions were not. GEICO may operate under whatever guidelines they wish. Disagreeing consumers may vote with their feet (and voice dissent in arenas like My3cents.com. Consumers have been conditioned to provide far too much information to organizations because they simply demand it. GEICO elected not to explain their need for extensive information and simply duplicated the policy. As for Hugh's advice to simply not pay for the unwanted policy without cancelling it... Based on the posted comments of other dissatisfied GEICO consumers, if I were to simply not pay for the unwanted policy, GEICO may have initiated a collections action against me. While I would have ultimately won that war, fighting the battles would be time consuming and would have temporarily, adversely affected my creditworthiness. Because nonpayment may result in a collections action, Hugh's advice to simply not pay a disputed bill (of any kind) should not be heeded. His advice, while well intentioned, is not an appropriate response to a disputed bill. Consumers should instead be guided by their rights and responsibilities under the Fair Credit Reporting Act rather than on assurances that a company may, or may not, have a reputation for high ratings in customer service.
Posted by rhondam718732 on 2006-05-16:
Sounds like a COMPLETE overeaction on your part. GEICO requested info on the relative housing your car because it's their obligation to do so! When you take out a policy, insurance companies ask about ALL household members for a reson. You may not ever expect your 15 yr old teenager to sneak your car out for a wild ride, but that companies want to know it's a remote possibility. They cover their asses...as they should. So wanting info on the person housing your car is REASONABLE by far. Get with it...what info were they requesting that was so private?? Get over it.
Posted by Doc J on 2006-05-16:
PirateWithParrot...Complaint is churning through the system. In my experience, results vary extensively between the states...depending on the quality and aggressiveness of the AG. Same with insurance commissions.
Posted by TheNewSheriff on 2006-05-16:
Asking you if you want a short-term storage rider is like asking you if you want free pie and chips. Of course you want free pie and chips. It's pie, with chips, for free! How's your mum?
Posted by Doc J on 2006-05-16:
rhondam718732...
The key point is; How "reasonable" is their request? Perhaps you missed that I had previous experience with other carriers with the same situation. In trying to save a few bucks, I gave up quality customer service by retaining a cut-rate company like GEICO. As an advocate of divulging everything, you are, of course, free to divulge whatever personal information you like, to whomever you want, and for whatever purpose the demanding party states. As to a "complete" overreaction by me. Kindly look inward...my posts do not contain expletives or read like a frothing rant. Your pro "You must give up privacy for any purpose deemed reasonable by an insurer." post suggests you may be a GEICO, or insurance industry, lurker. I wish you well.
The key point is; How "reasonable" is their request? Perhaps you missed that I had previous experience with other carriers with the same situation. In trying to save a few bucks, I gave up quality customer service by retaining a cut-rate company like GEICO. As an advocate of divulging everything, you are, of course, free to divulge whatever personal information you like, to whomever you want, and for whatever purpose the demanding party states. As to a "complete" overreaction by me. Kindly look inward...my posts do not contain expletives or read like a frothing rant. Your pro "You must give up privacy for any purpose deemed reasonable by an insurer." post suggests you may be a GEICO, or insurance industry, lurker. I wish you well.
Posted by Stew.old on 2006-05-16:
It would be interesting if somebody could post a valid reason why Geico required the information. If a car I own is not declared on a liability policy and I or somebody else gets into a wreck would the insurer be liable to pay the claims?
Posted by Doc J on 2006-05-16:
TheNewSheriff...
You hit the essence of the issue! Bravo. Why offer to give me "free pie and chips" (i.e. a $60 rider policy) knowing that I would likely accept them. My situation provided an opportunity for GEICO to upsell the policy from a $60 rider to a $280 full policy (No free pie and chips. Rather, sell a seven-course meal.). They took the easier, and more profitable, road in writing a new policy. And...
Mum is out on a pub crawl with her mates.
Gooday!
You hit the essence of the issue! Bravo. Why offer to give me "free pie and chips" (i.e. a $60 rider policy) knowing that I would likely accept them. My situation provided an opportunity for GEICO to upsell the policy from a $60 rider to a $280 full policy (No free pie and chips. Rather, sell a seven-course meal.). They took the easier, and more profitable, road in writing a new policy. And...
Mum is out on a pub crawl with her mates.
Gooday!
Posted by Hugh_Jorgen on 2006-05-16:
Doc got my point exactly - it's not unreasonable for them to want to know where the car is and who will have control of it. You might be leaving it with someone that has a tendency to get liquored up and drive at high speeds and they just happen to have seven DUI's on their record. They would like to know that in advance. Even though they might only be carrying minimum coverage, they know enough to realize if it gets driven and wrecked, chances are good they are going to get sued along with everyone else (see "deep pockets theory").
Posted by Doc J on 2006-05-16:
Stew...You comprehend something GEICO staffers could not. A loss caused by an undeclared driver would not be covered. To enforce coverage, an owner may be obligated to file a criminal complaint of unlawful use (or similar) against the unauthorized driver. A failure to do so may suggest shared negligence by the owner and can be relied upon by the insurer to deny or limit benefits. I raised the same question you posed to GEICO...no response...they just an issued duplicate policy. Easy, but wrong. All best.
Posted by Doc J on 2006-05-16:
Exactly Hugh. The basis of the dispute was whether GEICO was being "reasonable" with regard to their demands. My experience with other companies indicated they were not. Someone without the benefit of that experience may believe the demand by GEICO to be reasonable. It was the ultimate, reflexive response by GEICO that triggered our ire. They simply issued a policy and billed for it, rather than either explaining their need for the information or allowing us to decide if we desired another full policy (With emergency road service for a stored car?). There is no "free lunch". When you seek to save money by going cut-rate, expect to give up something. In exchange for low rates, GEICO skimps on customer service. This also appears to be the well-aimed point of TheNewSheriff.
As a side-bar to my comments that simply not paying the bill could be disasterous...a black mark against me by GEICO for an action of "cancellation due to non-payment of premiums" would not only affect my credit rating. It would also affect my ability to obtain future insurance. Bottom line...pay a bill...or contest it in writing. Never ignore them. Regards!
As a side-bar to my comments that simply not paying the bill could be disasterous...a black mark against me by GEICO for an action of "cancellation due to non-payment of premiums" would not only affect my credit rating. It would also affect my ability to obtain future insurance. Bottom line...pay a bill...or contest it in writing. Never ignore them. Regards!
Posted by batzion7 on 2006-05-17:
Oy Vey Doc....I see your point...Are you over 50? Member of AARP? If so check out AARP auto ins. ( ours is with Travelers) We got a fantastic rate and they are very professional. I am most happy with it. Blessings
Posted by Doc J on 2006-05-17:
Batzion7-Thanks. Will look into AARP as I, sadly, qualify. I think their carrier is The Hartfort, no? Had great experience with them some years back. But, tried to save $$$ by going cut-rate and recklessly abandoning the caveat emptor of business. Shalom um l'hitraot!
Posted by batzion7 on 2006-05-17:
DocJ ...yes it is Hartford.....I have my house with Travelers....I have a bad case of CRS...Can't remember stuff. LOL Blessings
Posted by beanbagbritches on 2006-05-18:
Yes, GEICO was obligated to ask you for information on the 3rd party. They have no way of knowing if that person has access to the keys. You DON'T have to pay for coverage you're not happy with. Just refuse pymt & get covered elsewhere. However, definitely give the 3rd party info to the new carrier.
Posted by Doc J on 2006-05-18:
New developments on this. Will go into full detail soon. Long day, tired, and needing sleep. For those who can't wait, I'll sum up...do not go to a discount store expecting Nieman-Marcus service. Caveat emptor!!
Posted by Doc J on 2006-05-19:
LOL about beanbag's advice. It was the intrusive nature of the carrier's demand for info that started the mess. I could have stayed with GEICO. In her defense, Beans may not have read the entire post and attached comments. I already obtained quotes from 4 companies about coverage for the stored vehicle...with no questions about the third party beyond the location, stored indoors/outdoors, or if my 3rd party provides any coverage for the stored vehicle (if so, name and address of company). Every agent so far said no need for personal info...if the third party operates the vehicle...no coverage for me in any incident and I'd be SOL...as is right. Since the incident, I spoke with my third party...they specifically instructed me that I have no permission to divulge information about them. Beans...the info belongs to the third party. It would be wrong to violate their wishes. Beans sounds likeable and I'd love to trust her, but cannot. More on this later.
Posted by Doc J on 2006-05-19:
Issue resolved. Had extremely pleasant conversation with GEICO's Internet Customer Service Supervisor. The man spoke like a well-trained insurance agent (unlike GEICO's first level customer service contacts who are typical "call center chimps" having limited authority and less insurance knowledge...they only get paid about $8/hr for their efforts.). Re-read the post and comments. Our complaint: GEICO issued a policy and billed for it without advising us this was their only available option in our circumstances. The situation was analogous to going to a doctor for an appendectomy and waking up with a bilateral hip replacement. The supervisor agreed with the analogy. Supervisor stated he knew other companies can provide storage policies or riders, GEICO does not. According to the supervisor, "GEICO involved employees acted entirely within company policy." I agree. But, if "company policy" was to mail policyholders their insurance documents rolled in feces, would the company's policy be acceptable to consumers? The entire complaint could have been avoided if GEICO merely sent a short e-mail telling us that their service options were limited to writing a duplicate policy. According to the supervisor, "We don't have that capability." He did agree that doing so would be "consistent with better customer service", but repeated that doing so "is not within the capabilities of our Internet Customer Service". I inquired if GEICO had e-mail capabilities. "Yes, but specific responses are not within our capabilities." In essence part of the premium savings garnered in buying cut-rate Internet serviced insurance (like GEICO...and others) is a trade for accepting a lesser level of customer service. Customer service is vital for insurance consumers, particuarly if it involves a claim. Thankfully, we found GEICO does not offer a care level we had learned to expect from our previous insurer before we had a claim. Part of the premium savings by going with GEICO comes from GEICO "not having the capability" to provide the same level of customer care as does a full service agent. GEICO may be able to provide cookie cutter insurance. This may be adequate for many consumers, not all. If your needs are very minimal and your customer service expectations are equally minimal (i.e. you just need insurance to be in DMV compliance) you can go on the cheap with GEICO and pray you never have a claim. I can only imagine GEICO's limited capabilities with claim handling! With a claim, you want to be able to sit across a desk from your agent's smiling face. Would you get an appendectomy from an Internet doctor? Buying insurance from GEICO via the Internet and expecting good customer service is like booking a wedding reception at "Duke's Hot Dog Emporium" and expecting steak and a maitre-d'. It is virtually thus with all Internet commerce. Thanks to all who contributed advice.
Posted by glc on 2006-05-21:
Doc..I'm glad that you got this resolved. I do have one question (as a concerned GEICO policyholder for many years), where exactly, did you obtain the information that the "call center chimps" (I found that a bit crude) make $8 per hour?
Posted by lgt106 on 2006-05-21:
As an insurance agent, I can say that you are way off base. First of all, you have to have care custody and control of something to insure it. So if you are leaving your vehicle somewhere that you are not, then your insurance company has the right to know. 2nd if that is a risk that your company is going to accept to insure that vehicle and someone drives it, they will pay the claim even if they have not gathered the appropriate premium for other's that may have access to the vehicle. 3rd, how can you ask a company to say that they will pay at times up to a million dollars on your behalf for a car accident and get mad when they are asking for information to try to determine what type of risk is involved.
Posted by Doc J on 2006-05-22:
lgt-I'll be as gentle as possible. For an "insurance agent" you appear a little dim with regard to liability. Otherwise, you would understand that vehicle is covered only if stored and, in doing so, I am not insuring it for liability (the policy specifically excludes all losses due to the vehicle being in operation). Coverage is effective for losses where the vehicle is damaged or stolen at the place it is stored. Thankfully, my agent understands this. If the vehicle is operated, under the storage policy, the operator is liable. I am liable if the vehicle is operated with my permission or if I am negligent in leaving it under conditions where it is an "attractive nuisance" and somebody is able to gain access to it and drive it. It is locked, I have the only keys, and it is secured inside a building.
Posted by Doc J on 2006-05-22:
glc-If you've been a GEICO policyholder for many years and you are happy with their level of "care", Mazal Tov. I have no experience with their "live" agents and will not comment on them. However, Do NOT try managing your insurance via the internet. As for being "crude"...based on my experience with their call center staffers, my characterization of them as "call center chimps" would only be seen as crude because it offends chimpanzees or other lower primates. All best.
Posted by glc on 2006-05-22:
Shalom, Doc J. In all honesty, I have never "managed" my GEICO policies via the Internet, I have only utilized the insurance counselors telephonically, and I have found them to be caring and very knowledgeable about insurance laws in NY, where I reside. I take back the "crude" remark, as I am sure that you did not mean to disrespect any chimps! Peace.
Posted by Doc J on 2006-05-23:
Thanks glc. I think they can handle the "basic" or "routine". Just don't ask them to think through complex issues. They don't have the knowledge base or the ability to spend time with you. I sincerely believe it takes a live, experienced agent for that. Consider this, would you go to the Internet or use a call center with questions about a life or death health issue? Or, would you go sit in front of your family physician? Something as important as insurance deserves the same consideration. Regards.
Posted by Grandpap on 2008-04-24:
GEICO ripped me off too. I paid for an extended warranty on my car for years, but they used a loop hole to get out of paying when my rotars got warped. The fine print states that if an "uncovered" part causes a "covered" part to be damaged, they don't pay. Well guess what? Almost every covered part can be blamed on an uncovered part - GEIOC's extended warranty program is a rip off!!!
Posted by djmillar1 on 2012-12-02:
To answer in regard to a claim with Geico- they are worse. Their policy holder 100% @ fault, sited by law enforcement for vehicle code violation. Geico's investigation was attempt how to put 35% liability on me. I had to dictate to them 1)contact my mechanic shop to authorize repairs, 2) provide a rental while I have no vehicle (that took 30 days to get), 3) cut the check to pay for parts & repairs, 4) contact rental company authorizing the return date so I could get my deposit for the rental back, as that is part of my SSI/SSD income. Still haven't settled on the injury portion yet, so still have the finale left to complete.
Note: All comments are reviewed by a moderator before being published. Please be sure to read our guidelines before commenting.
Company Reps: Post your company response!
