by chris11 » Sun May 10, 2009 03:47 pm
I honestly thought that the other driver would notify my insurance if they wanted to file a claim. There was no damage to her vehicle, but Geico says that she has hired a laywer and is suing for pain and suffering, and they will not cover me, because they were not notified until 250 days after the accident. They said that her insurance may cover her claim since they will not. We did call the pollice and get a police report at the time of the accident. What can I do?
Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 07:12 pm Post Subject:
This is where I hate insurance companies. They always try to skip out on paying with any opportunity exist. This sounds do bogus and I would change companies promptly and not give them any business. I would call the attorney general, I would call the bbb.org, I would call the department of insurance in your state and not stop there. Look over your entire paperwork and find out where it states that information and even ask an adjuster to show you. Then, find out how long it took for them to get you the proper information as well. Did the notify you promptly, did they wait or what happened? You may also have to get a lawyer involved to help you sort things out as well. I wouldn't let this company take another penny from you. Companies need to help drivers or clients when they are in trouble or need. This is when a driver needs help and advise at the most, they seem to thrive on this and it makes me very sick! Get a new auto insurance company, one who is willing to stand behind you when you are down and is willing to help you in need. This is bogus and upsetting to me!
Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 10:32 pm Post Subject:
I'm having a hard time figuring out who screwed up more on this claim.
I'm with you on that one....but for the love of george, paul, john and ringo..if an ambulance hauls off someone you just rearended....wouldn't 'something' tell you to report the claim? :roll: Sorry but I think the OP's the hands down winner in this race.This is where I hate insurance companies. They always try to skip out on paying with any opportunity exist. This sounds do bogus and I would change companies promptly and not give them any business. I would call the attorney general, I would call the bbb.org, I would call the department of insurance in your state and not stop there.
Ok, Just, are you really saying that the OP had no obligation to let her carrier know that she rearended someone that left the accident scene in an ambulance? seriously? bbb, and dept of ins. won't do a thing on this...unless and until she can prove bad faith, T and I disagree, I don't see any bad faith, and think her policy language is VERY clear...and she didn't hold up her end of the agreement...Look over your entire paperwork and find out where it states that information and even ask an adjuster to show you.
why don't you read a couple of posts back, she posted the letter of denial which has the policy/contract language in it, showing their reason for denial..Then, find out how long it took for them to get you the proper information as well.
WHAT? they denied it quickly after they were made aware of the claim 250 days after the accident..what are you talking about?Did the notify you promptly, did they wait or what happened?
again....WHAT?This is bogus and upsetting to me!
Just, what do you think this thread is about?Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 10:59 pm Post Subject:
Sorry but I think the OP's the hands down winner in this race.
Yes, knowing that now I agree. It was "omitted" initially and I was under the "impression" that it was a light tap with no damage. Yeah... someone getting hauled off to the hospital might just warrant a call the the insurance company.[quote]I think it's very clear as well and there is no question that the OP waiting way too long and never reported the claim. But that is not the issue. The issue is if GEICO was harmed in some way by this delay.If I was the adjuster my first reaction would to be pissed. It's just plain stupidity that the OP never reported the accident. Now I'm left to get information that is 250 days old in order to properly defend the OP. The second thing I'd do is to sent a risk alert so the OP's policy was not renewed. Fourth thing is that I'd send a Reservations of Rights letter. But then I'd start the investigation to see what info was available. I'm betting GEICO did not take their investigation very far and if not, how do they know their rights were affected? Take everything GEICO could have had the day after the accident and ask if it can be obtained now. If it can, then what has changed? If nothing then how has GEICO been hurt in anyway? If GEICO has not been harmed by the late report then they are denying the claim only because they can. Any judge/jury is going to see that the GEICO is collecting a premium and not offering coverage simply based on a few words in a policy. The _real_ question the judge is going to look at is why the wording is there.
Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 12:23 am Post Subject:
If GEICO has not been harmed by the late report then they are denying the claim only because they can
I agree and would've had the same four steps as you if I got this claim...the problem is I think they can...should they? maybe not..if the clmt still has their vehicle and the insureds vehicle is still in the same shape (no new impacts to either)...then most likely they weren't harmed...and I agree, they should've investigate this, if they didn't...but investigating it too could've 'implied coverage'...(i'm not agreeing just saying)...and I'm betting that's why they denied it out of the gate, (if they did...she didn't say how long after she reported it they denied it)..Any judge/jury is going to see that the GEICO is collecting a premium and not offering coverage simply based on a few words in a policy.
The other question is how are these words any different than other policy conditions Todd? Clearly the state the OP is in allows this in the policy...How are these words any different than say, ''we will not cover an intentional act?" those too are just words... :wink:Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 12:53 am Post Subject:
How are these words any different than say, ''we will not cover an intentional act?" those too are just words
The section that they are locate in and the intent of those sections. Reporting a claim is not in the coverage or exclusion section... its in the Conditions sections, not under Exclusions. Take a look at some of the other items in the Conditions sections. It states that the insured must cooperate. If the insured does not return a few phone calls or respond to a few letters are you going to deny coverage? It states that the insured will assume no obligation or payment without the insureds consent. Are you going to deny a claim when the insured tells the other person that his/her insurance will pay for the damage? It states that the insured must immediately send copies of notices. Are you going to deny a claim when the insured does not send you an attorney rep letter "immediately"? Under Conditions the policy does state that the carrier has no duty to provide coverage if these duties are not met. But we all know that there is wording in the policy that does not hold up in court. The entire Conditions section is one of those things. GEICO is certainly within their rights to deny coverage. But this in no way means that it would hold up in court.Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 03:06 am Post Subject: insurance
No...there IS no law you have to report a claim. But, if you KNOW there is an injury, then why NOT report it? The OP NOT reporting the cliam just makes her look bad..........especially if the other person was hurt in the accident.
Posted: Thu May 14, 2009 10:41 am Post Subject:
I know you know I know that... :wink: my point was ''just words'' is ''just words'' :wink:The section that they are locate in and the intent of those sections. Reporting a claim is not in the coverage or exclusion section... its in the Conditions sections, not under Exclusions. Take a look at some of the other items in the Conditions sections
If the insured does not return a few phone calls or respond to a few letters are you going to deny coverage?
Maybe, depends on the claim..first of course they would get a 'hey wake up, and call me' letter and a ROR ... then if no return call I'd close the claim...and let the clmts lawyer wake them up.. :wink:But this in no way means that it would hold up in court.
I agree or that it would not hold up..dice roll..Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 04:19 pm Post Subject:
If I haven't heard anything from the attorney yet, do you think they just dropped it? If the other partys insuance paid the claim ,and then will be coming after me, how long would that take? Thanks for all the replies.
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 06:54 am Post Subject:
Hello Chris and welcome back.
If I haven't heard anything from the attorney yet, do you think they just dropped it?
I'd say that's very unlikely. If they had to drop the case they wouldn't have persuaded it at the first place.
Have you heard anything from your carrier afterward?
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 11:00 am Post Subject:
However long the statute of limitations in your state is...that's how long they can wait. Maybe she didn't file a UM claim, or if she did she hasn't settled it yet. Remember though, if they do file suit even though your carrier denied your claim...get those suit papers to the claims dept within 24 hrs of receiving them. They may change their mind if a suit is filed.
Add your comment