Geico
Policy cancelled citing husband's DUI from 1.5 years earlier

Business & Finance

One morning I got up and checked my bank account and noticed a 275.00 refund from Geico. I called them to find out what the refund was all about and they put me on hold, and when the rep came back he said that I was being cancelled because of my husband's DUI in 7/12, which it is now 1.5 years later. I couldn't believe it, especially since they knew and sent the SR-22 to the state to keep my husband driving. I believe the real reason is because my son who is 16 got in a accident and it was his fault. I can't believe they are using my husband's DUI as the reason. I'm pretty sure it was my son's accident that caused the cancellation. I have been with Geico for 7 years and have never had any claims before. It is very sad to say that they have lived up to all the crap that is said negatively about them on the internet. They sure aren't very loyal or forgiving. Geico is great as long as you don't have to actually use the insurance you pay for month over month. I have found new insurance now and will never go back to Geico. Don't use them even if they are cheaper, because when the chips are down, they will drop you in a minute. Very disappointed.


Company: Geico
Country: USA
  <     >  

RELATED COMPLAINTS

Geico ins. GEICO company geico insurance company Washington DC geico claims department geico general
Insurer promised to pay medical bills, then backed out until I sued

Geico
Claims denied over alleged lapse and uninsured vehicle

Geico Auto Insurance
Liability denied after driver passed out at wheel and hit car

Geico
Rates raised 50 dollars a month after reporting minor accident

Geico
Both Drivers Insured by Same Company, Claimed Partly Liable

Geico
Claim Mishandled, Vehicle Never Fully Repaired After Injury Accident

Geico
Auto pay cancelled but another payment taken, refund denied

Geico
Autopay charged after cancellation confirmed by rep

Geico
Loyal customer getting screwed - auto insurance

Geico
Insurer will not confirm whether at-fault driver had coverage after rear-end hit