|
GEICO and Georgia.
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 16:18 |
|
|
Wade Wilson posted:GEICO and Georgia. Take some of those other steps if you can. Its rough I know. Legally a company is required to defend you up to the limits of the policy. If its cheaper in their estimation to just pay it than defend you, then they are going to just pay it. You're going to have one at fault accident on your record and it'll be there for 3 years at the least, 5 for most. So, just be prepared to pay a slightly higher premium for a bit:(
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
I'm just aggravated that someone can wait nearly two years, get some friends together and get their story straight, sue and get paid even when the photos of the accident prove the lie of the claim. Since I don't have the resources to get my own attorney, I'm probably going to go with the third option and file a complaint with the insurance commissioner's office once I get the actual notification that GEICO decided to settle in the mail, for all the good that will do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
Wade Wilson posted:I'm just aggravated that someone can wait nearly two years, get some friends together and get their story straight, sue and get paid even when the photos of the accident prove the lie of the claim. Well the silver lining is that it DID happen 2 years ago so it won't be on your record for that much longer. I had a similar incident and by the time it all got hammered out, it was already past the 3 year mark.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Wade Wilson posted:I'm just aggravated that someone can wait nearly two years, get some friends together and get their story straight, sue and get paid even when the photos of the accident prove the lie of the claim. Here is a useful link My advice is to call a personal injury lawyer in your state and tell them what is happening. They will likely want to counter sue, and it is likely that they will do it at no cost to you unless they win. They will take roughly 30%, but that is better than losing hand over foot to the fraud which opens you up to further lawsuits. And, as was stated just a few posts before me...for the love of god people stop buying minimum coverage! The only "minimum coverage" that you want to have is the "minimum coverage" required to carry an Umbrella policy. Seriously they are NOT just for the rich anymore... (Also, Geico doesn't have the "boots on the ground" that other LOCAL companies do...buy smart.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Uh... Just to check: when GEICO settled, are you sure the settlement agreement didn't release you from liability? And yeah, you may have a cause of action against the insurance company, which a local lawyer may be willing to take on contingency.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
How did the at fault person sue Geico? Wouldn't the police report immediately discredit their claim that you ran the red light?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Scrapez posted:How did the at fault person sue Geico? Wouldn't the police report immediately discredit their claim that you ran the red light? Lawyers are sneaky...and it isn't impossible to go AFTER the fact to the police station and file your own report. I am currently fighting a lady who came into my lane and hit me. She is lying to Nationwide saying we both merged into the lane at the same time. Stories change...especially if people wait a full year and only remember HALF of the details. Record everything you can and get a lawyer when the word "lawsuit" is dropped.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
And remember, its about liability for the insurance company. He paid up to $25k in coverage. No more, no less. The companies analysts look at the case and consider the cost of depositions, filing fees, lawyers, trial dates, logistics, time lost, work load, etc. etc. Even if the case is solid and it looks like they could win, if its cheaper to pay out $25K than to do all of that stuff, they are going to pay out $25K. The actuaries have worked out exactly how much premium would cover that much risk at that specific time. Just because you're right, doesn't mean you're legally going to win. Look at cases against big companies that settle. Its easier to settle and throw free coupons to the person than go into court, even if they are blowing smoke up their rear end.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
Wade Wilson posted:injury stuff I'm curious about the details of this claim. Where is the damage to each vehicle? You said it was your driver side. They said it was their passenger side. That doesn't make sense unless the initial impact was corner to corner. Otherwise, it would be the front of one car and the side of the other. Second, who are these witnesses? Where is the other party claiming they came from? Obviously they did not talk to the police at the scene.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
Hell, I was hit 4 years ago on the drivers side between the driver and passenger door while I had a car full of people. No police citation for her and the accident was ruled no-fault. But the chick lied and said that I entered the right turn lane early and was speeding at the same time even though the light was red upon my approach. Anyway, State Farm is stupid. Sorry about GEICO giving you poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
Kung Fu Jesus posted:I'm curious about the details of this claim. Where is the damage to each vehicle? You said it was your driver side. They said it was their passenger side. That doesn't make sense unless the initial impact was corner to corner. Otherwise, it would be the front of one car and the side of the other. Yeah, I've got photos. This was her car:  This was my car:  EDIT: I already had a full CT Scan scheduled for three days after this accident to look for tumors after my chemo, so I asked them to also let me know if there were any internal injuries I needed to have checked out (had some bruising on the left side of my stomach) and was told by my oncologist that all that was visibly "wrong" internally was scar tissue consistent with my previous surgery to remove the tumor I had. Some Pinko Commie fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Nov 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Wade Wilson posted:Yeah, I've got photos. Well there is your problem. Why did you run into the front of her car with the side of yours? Clearly you are at fault there. Seriously though, that sucks:( I'd show that to everyone you've mentioned contacting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Well there is your problem. Why did you run into the front of her car with the side of yours? Clearly you are at fault there. Yea it looks pretty clear like a collision from the side that actually spun your car causing front fender damage. You are lucky you didn't have any further injuries. Claims departments suck...claims reps get paid and make bonuses to clear their desks of claims. The faster that a claim is closed to "satisfaction" the more money an adjuster will make. If they opened the claim back up after the fact, couldn't contact you or the facts "sounded" right they will pay and clear the file. You have to be prepared to counter their claims and damages.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Scrapez posted:How did the at fault person sue Geico? Wouldn't the police report immediately discredit their claim that you ran the red light? You would think so, but the police issued tickets to both of us and basically said "I don't have time to sort this out because I have to go to another wreck two intersections down where there are actual injuries, you can each make your case to the judge in court". Unfortunately, nothing like that was noted on the police report. The judge dismissed my ticket, but I have no idea whether the same was done for the woman that hit me because we had separate trials. Some Pinko Commie fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Nov 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Wade Wilson posted:You would think so, but the police issued tickets to both of us and basically said "I don't have time to sort this out, you can each make your case to the judge in court". See cops don't understand how their actions influence insurance claims...in Cleveland, OH they won't come to the scene unless someone is dead or a car is on fire. My recent claim the cop hosed up the whole report and then tried to tell me all the insurance company cares about is the "At Fault" box at the top of the report (good thing he knows more than I do...an insurance agent). Well thanks to that cop my claim is denied and I am hiring a lawyer. My advice, go get copies of the police report, court documents (even hers should be available) and all the prior stuff you have access to and then get a lawyer...seriously don't waste time on this because the longer you wait the colder the trail gets and the longer they have to organize things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
OssiansFolly posted:See cops don't understand how their actions influence insurance claims...in Cleveland, OH they won't come to the scene unless someone is dead or a car is on fire. My recent claim the cop hosed up the whole report and then tried to tell me all the insurance company cares about is the "At Fault" box at the top of the report (good thing he knows more than I do...an insurance agent). Well thanks to that cop my claim is denied and I am hiring a lawyer. Good advice. Cops don't understand or often care about the ramifications of their actions. To get somewhat political, a lot of times minorities will be cited for traffic tickets that others wouldn't have been due to increased traffic stops. Guess which group pays more for insurance and is often priced out of the market. Which means less money for other things and less likelihood of good continuity of coverage. Don't trust a cops word on it. Make sure they note EVERYTHING and you take your own pictures and never ever ever ever admit fault.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Wade Wilson posted:Is there any particular reason why I should tolerate an insurance company that will settle an auto accident injury claim when there is clear fraud going on on the part of the plaintiff? 2) You weren't at fault, you should have lawyer'd up. You lost money in the deal and you weren't at fault, that is easily correctable. Call a Personal Injury lawyer now. Even the worst one can get you made whole and get this reversed (probably) and maybe even land some profit in your pocket because you've been wrongly screwed with. 3) I'm shocked you sustained no injury. Lucky person!
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
I had a company van that I have put roughly 4k miles a month on. Now my company is taking it away. I got insurance while I had the van, but don't remember if they asked me how much I drove it (met-life). Do I have any obligation to call them and tell them that I'm going to be driving 42000 miles a year on that car now?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
22 Eargesplitten posted:I had a company van that I have put roughly 4k miles a month on. Now my company is taking it away. I got insurance while I had the van, but don't remember if they asked me how much I drove it (met-life). Do I have any obligation to call them and tell them that I'm going to be driving 42000 miles a year on that car now? I'd give them a call and ask. Since its going from business to personal use I think it'd be a pretty big change.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
22 Eargesplitten posted:I had a company van that I have put roughly 4k miles a month on. Now my company is taking it away. I got insurance while I had the van, but don't remember if they asked me how much I drove it (met-life). Do I have any obligation to call them and tell them that I'm going to be driving 42000 miles a year on that car now? Yes. "Technically" not informing your agent/insurance company could mean they are over charging you for insurance or worse not charging you enough. If they find you aren't driving a specific vehicle, are driving more, are using a vehicle for a different purpose than specified or anything else they COULD deny a claim in the event you have one. Not telling them of a change is considered Soft Fraud. quote:Hard vs. soft fraud Obviously this advice is coming from an Agent in Ohio. Laws may be different in your state. I live by the mantra be honest when it comes to insurance because if you aren't the ramifications suck. Almost every insurance company has an SIU (Special Investigations Unit) that their ONLY job is to find fraud.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
Am I obligated to tell my auto carrier if I change addresses? My mailing address is still my former home (family member's house in the suburbs), but now I live in the city a few miles away with a different zip code.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Am I obligated to tell my auto carrier if I change addresses? See my above response, and yes you should tell them. Typically insurance companies want to know your GARAGING address which is where the car will be parked the majority of the time. Different zip codes typically mean different premiums. In this case I would imagine living in the city is more expensive that the suburbs so you probably aren't paying enough premium. Which company do you have?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Also as a note, remember, most insurance companies as nice and benevolent as they may seem, will DENY DENY DENY DENY DENY any claim they can within reason. Lied about where the car is kept? DENIED. Using the vehicle for business instead of personal use? DENY. Lied about getting a newer model vehicle? DENY. Look at it from this point of view: How many reasons am I giving my company reasons to deny my claim?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Also as a note, remember, most insurance companies as nice and benevolent as they may seem, will DENY DENY DENY DENY DENY any claim they can within reason. Lied about where the car is kept? DENIED. Using the vehicle for business instead of personal use? DENY. Lied about getting a newer model vehicle? DENY. Not to mention the ridiculous number of rules the states impart on companies...they HAVE to collect X premium from people based on age, region, vehicle, use, credit, etc. so when you mislead them they didn't collect the correct amount of premium and they have to explain that to the state if caught. It is to keep rates fair across the board for consumers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
Thought I'd post this: http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/saskatoon/jennifer-huculak-kimmel-s-1m-baby-bill-denied-by-saskatchewan-blue-cross-1.2847097 Got a lovely email this morning saying "What a travesty this wasn't covered. DONT COMMENT TO ADVISORS/CLIENTS WHETHER OR NOT WE WOULD HAVE COVERED THIS"
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
Wow. BCBS is a scummy organization down here in the States, it's great to hear they at least extend the pain to visiting Canadians. My Canadian relatives in BC have far more good things to say about BCBS than I or my US family, so I know this isn't how it always is for Canadian health. I hope the family sues and wins.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
Yeah that is pretty rough. A double shock too for a Canadian not expecting to pay that kind of cost in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
SiGmA_X posted:Wow. BCBS is a scummy organization down here in the States, it's great to hear they at least extend the pain to visiting Canadians. My Canadian relatives in BC have far more good things to say about BCBS than I or my US family, so I know this isn't how it always is for Canadian health. We have a weird thing with large claims up here. We're totally fine with everybody claiming a poo poo ton of massage therapy with no proof of it being medically necessary. But I have to flag pretty much every Out of Country claim for review. Its not that Blue Cross is scum, its that they all are and would do the exact same thing in a heartbeat. I've never dealt with a claim that high, but its been mentioned in passing a while ago that if we ever saw something like that we would do everything in our power to stop the claim from going through and never insure that person again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
1500quidporsche posted:We have a weird thing with large claims up here. We're totally fine with everybody claiming a poo poo ton of massage therapy with no proof of it being medically necessary. But I have to flag pretty much every Out of Country claim for review. Its not that Blue Cross is scum, its that they all are and would do the exact same thing in a heartbeat. Good info re how they treat things in CA. I only knew from my families experiences, never from the other side.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
I have an opportunity to become a claims adjuster and I was wondering what the position is actually like and how marketable the skill set of a claims adjuster actually is?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
Scooter_McCabe posted:I have an opportunity to become a claims adjuster and I was wondering what the position is actually like and how marketable the skill set of a claims adjuster actually is? Well you learn a lot about insurance contracts and underwriting for the companies, so I can see that bring and useful skill in the insurance world. I'm looking to get out of sales myself and into claims, and I know as far as career track, it's pretty helpful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
Scooter_McCabe posted:I have an opportunity to become a claims adjuster and I was wondering what the position is actually like and how marketable the skill set of a claims adjuster actually is? you learn a lot about policies and reading/interpreting legalese stuff. Would be good if you want to move into anything with contracts if you decide insurance isn't for you. I'd probably say its the more interesting of the insurance professions. However there are some draw backs, hours are erratic, you're on the road a lot and there is a lot of reports to fill out. Are you going to be in house for an insurance co or with a third party company? I haven't really spoken directly to anybody about it but it seems like working for a 3rd party is a better gig from what I've seen. Its also worth keeping in mind you'll likely be the single biggest expense for a claim outside of the claim itself on most cases you deal with, so you won't always be buddy buddy with the insurance company you're working for on a claim. Having said all that when I got started I had two offers in insurance, one to be an underwriter and the other to be a claims adjuster, the claims adjuster paid a little less but if I did it over I would go for the claims adjuster over underwriting. It definitely seems more engaging.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
Scooter_McCabe posted:I have an opportunity to become a claims adjuster and I was wondering what the position is actually like and how marketable the skill set of a claims adjuster actually is? It is all going to depend on the company, line of insurance and type of adjuster (inside or outside). I know when I did it for a short stint with State Farm you got paid to get claims off your desk. My job was to approve or deny fast and to get people to get the car repaired ASAP before more damages or costs were incurred. Don't be surprised if the company you work for has the same procedure... As someone else said, the hours are erratic. Make sure if you are NOT salary that you know the overtime and working off the clock rules in the contract. A lot of the time you will have a pile of work to do, but if you stay past your allowable time you can get yourself in hot water. Obviously if you are salary they care a bit less because it is YOUR time you are wasting not their money. While you are there you will likely be asked to get your licenses (if you haven't), so you are always able to get additional designations if the company will support you doing so...I'd look into them because my PLCS makes me look good to agencies if I go looking for another job (my current job liked that I had it). Some examples of designations
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
My office works with a lot of adjusters, and one of the lawyers here used to be an adjuster; my observations are that they tend to be trying to do too much with too little. The insurance companies try to save as much money as possible by stacking on more cases than they really should on each adjuster. And there are some serious technical limitations, too; most of the adjusters I work with are running laptops with Windows XP. And the job can be depressing at times; you are frequently seeing people at their worst, or after horribly tragic events. From an outside perspective, I mostly see the negative stuff, so keep that in mind; most of them seem to like their jobs, though I think it takes a certain type.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
The company would have me in house and on a salary. I just want to make sure the skill set I pick up from the position is something that translates better than "sales." Again thanks for the responses, its really helpful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
Scooter_McCabe posted:The company would have me in house and on a salary. I just want to make sure the skill set I pick up from the position is something that translates better than "sales." It will translate more to Underwriting and Adjusting. There are more skills you will get from this than sales...to be honest sales will likely be the LAST skill you get from doing that job.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 14:39
|
|
|
Scooter_McCabe posted:The company would have me in house and on a salary. I just want to make sure the skill set I pick up from the position is something that translates better than "sales." What sort of claims with this be? Depending on what your specific job entails, you could be in a cubicle Mon-Fri 9-5 in a semi-call center situation, listening to every excuse in the book why its not their fault. You might also experience the joy of talking to someone after their son was just smashed by your insured's car and killed. Or you could be driving around all day to accidents/homes. Personally, I think working in the field on exclusively homeowner claims for a small to medium company would be perfect. You're out of the office and if the company isn't huge, you won't get stuck working 100 hour weeks when a tornado hits. I personally work Mon-Fri standard hours, holidays off. I do not work crazy hours. I sit in a cubicle and handle auto/homeowner claims. I set up appraisals, get statements, make liability decisions. All day, every day. It never ends with these monkeys in their cars. As for skills, I'd say you will learn to communicate well, deal with all sorts of people. You'll learn the laws and regulations of the insurance industry. You'll learn about cars and homes a bit, if that's what you do. 1500quidporsche posted:Having said all that when I got started I had two offers in insurance, one to be an underwriter and the other to be a claims adjuster, the claims adjuster paid a little less but if I did it over I would go for the claims adjuster over underwriting. It definitely seems more engaging. I'd love to do underwriting, I think. I'm tired of dealing with people all day. Do you have to contact policyholders a lot in this position and explain why their rates went up? Or do you just silently stare at a computer all day, analyzing poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 06:15
|
|
|
Kung Fu Jesus posted:I'd love to do underwriting, I think. I'm tired of dealing with people all day. Do you have to contact policyholders a lot in this position and explain why their rates went up? Or do you just silently stare at a computer all day, analyzing poo poo? As an Agent I'd love to do Underwriting over claims too. I am sure I say that but mean "I'd love to do Underwriting for companies A, B, and C" because there are crappy companies to work for too *cough* State Farm. If you want to get into Insurance for Claims though keep an eye on ACUITY...they've been a top insurance company to work for (like they are a wonderful company) for years now and they are expanding rapidly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 16:18 |
|
|
I'm the other way around. Claims seems a bit more up my alley and I'm trying to get into that from Sales. UW seems good, but there are a lot of low, low level jobs and then there are a very super high jobs and not much in between. Claims seems to have a bit more of a career path built in and you can learn a lot more that way. Both are probably better than sales though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 15:49
|
|