My wife, a GEICO auto policyholder was involved in a minor traffic accident in Sun City, Arizona on 11/10/98. It was an accident that at the time had no evidence or witnesses that gave any indication as to which driver was at fault. It should have been called no-fault.
GEICO's claim service was promptly called and we were promised that GEICO did not accept opinions of police in determining responsibility for the accident but instead did their own "thorough investigation" to determine fault.
Since that time, GEICO found my wife "100% responsible" for that accident exactly 30 days after the accident with absolutely no credible evidence and over these past 19-20 months have acted only with deceit, lies, avoidance, etc., etc.in response to my questions and my quest for the truth. I will explain the high spots:
1. GEICO's initial finding that my wife was responsible was based on two factors in their letter. The first (a) was her violation of Arizona law pertaining to intersections and the (b) second was the points of impact to the vehicles. The inadequacy of their basis is clearly obvious when the police report clearly stated that the accident "was not intersection related" and at her Hearing, the Hearing officer clearly stated that "It is not an intersection. Not even a junction!" As for GEICO's basis of "points of impact" it is important to note that at the time of their determination against my wife, GEICO had no pictures of the other vehicle, had not examined the other vehicle, and had been advised by the other driver's company that "no damage" was done to their vehicle. THEN: 42 days later, Mr. David Bronder of GEICO stated to me in writing that determinining the "actual points of impact at that time would not further their investigation"!
Since that time, in response to my perserverence in this matter, GEICO has indicated that they also have subsequently received a "witness statement" and that has been surrounded by sheer deceit and lies on their part. I will explain!!!
First, this is a witness that my wife and I found after she had been determined responsible by GEICO and who made various statements to my wife and I, face to face. Most were more advantageous to her position but one statement he made was damaging, but inconsistant. I called GEICO about this witness and explained in detail his complete statement to us including the damaging one. I requested Mr. Dave Fetchina of GEICO to call the witness and particularly requested that he question him closey on the damaging statement.
Approximately 2-3 days later, I called Mr. Fetchina and was advised that he just hung up from a very limited conversation with the witness and that he made a damaging statement against
my wife. When I asked him if he had questioned him closely on the damaging statement, he said, "No". I requested Mr. Fetchina to folllow up with this witness, he said he would, and never has.
Now, GEICO has stated to the AZ dept. Of Insurance that they have a "witness statement" and THEY DO NOT per their own letters.
Per GEICO's eventual correspondence to me, this supposed witness made a comment to a Mr. Mike Williams, our initial claims agent, who just fortunately for GEICO is no longer in their emploment. This is a lie because Mr. Fetchina told me personally that HE spoke with the witness.
Mr. Bronder of GEICO also has informed me in writing that this witness has "refused to give GEICO a written or recorded" statement. Mr. Bronder further indicates that no significant notes have been retained by GEICO as to their conversation with that witness. And finally, I will state that that witness has changed his statements three different times and at least one year ago still did business with the driver of the other vehicle.
This witness nor GEICO has any credibility in this matter.
Now I will state some things that will appear damaging to my wife's position but please understand that I can back up everything I am about to say as regards the police, the Az Courts, and the Az Dept. Of Insurance. I have the documentation. I will also state that I welcome any rebuttal to anything stated. However, anyone disagreeing should be willing to debate any part of this incident with specifics, not in generalities.
My wife was found responsible for this accident by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Dept. Only by the "contrivance" of the two officers involved. As stated, there was no evidence at the time of the accident and to date, there is no credible evidence against my wife. There is much more but I will state for now that in their investigation of this accident, the police investgators violated Arizona Law at least four times and I believe possibly my wife's rights under the Arizona and US constitutions. (1) These officers violated ARS 28-669 by not including in the police report one word as to the cause of the accident, (2) misrepresented and/or omitted statements and conditions relating to that accident that were pertinent, (3) Failed to give the other driver a citation for lack of current financial responsibility information as required, (4) solicited after the fact, the financial responsibility information, a responsibility under Arizona law given only to court officers.
Two and one half months after the accident, my wife attended her hearing without any knowledge of specifically what she had supposedly done wrong. The only thing that was stated to her by police, THREE WEEKS AFTER THE ACCIDENT was the specific charge. I believe that both the US and Arizona Constitutions guarantee that she be entitled to know "the nature and cause of the accusation against her".
As for the Hearing Officer at court, he exibited obvious bias and at every opportunity short circuited and limited my wife's defense. I can detail and document this to anyone desiring me to prove that statement but I will give only one significant example.
That Hearing officer denied my wife's defense the opportunity to discuss "speed" of the vehicles" because "speed" was not a factor for the charge against her. Then at the end of the hearing, he found her guilty on the basis of the "position" of her vehicle in the road and then indicates that it also was not a factor for the charge against her. He can use against her any factors of his choosing while he limits her defense that same prerogative.
This matter becomes even more unfair when one considers that the "position" of her vehicle was not a factor or evidence introduced by her accusers. It was a factor however, that she fully explained in her opening statement but either the Hearing Officer didn't hear it or he DIDN'T WANT to hear it. My wife was defending herself against her accusers and the hearing officer, who should be the arbitrator.
I have offered GEICO $1,000 if they will submit to me one iota of credible evidence that points to my wife's guilt or responsibility for this accident and they cannot respond because there is none. GEICO, exactly 30 days after the accident, made a determination that this accident was too insignificant for them to do a "thorough investigation" so they, in my opinion, conspired with the other driver's company to make my wife the sacrificial lamb and closed our claim in order to cut the cost of their investigation. The one thing that GEICO planned but did not happen was that "I did not roll over and play dead"!
My wife is entirely innocent in this accident and not one individual in these past 19-20 months has had the integrity and/or courage to look at all the facts that will prove that.
I encourage anyone who takes exception to any part of this writing to question me at my EMail address: [email protected].
I guarantee a response.
Finally, I will relate one other aspect of this matter that I believe clearly demonstrates the negligent and biased attitude that GEICO has maintained. The other vehicle was a Pinkerton Security Service vehicle which was driven on and off a major hospital's (Boswell in Sun City, Az) campus conducting security
and probably other duties. The driver of that vehicle refused to give GEICO any formal statement until 4/1/99, over four and one half months after the accident and according to Mr. Bronder of GEICO, Pinkerton Security Services personnel advised him that this was due to the fact that she could not "speak english"!
GEICO believes this and like they used to say, "Anyone have a bridge that they would like to sell? I can give you the number of GEICO CEO, Tony Nicely. He just may be interested.
My personal experience indicates that GEICO stands for:
Guaranteed (*) Expedient Insurance Claims Operation
(*) concern for what is advantageous without
regard for fairness or rightness
=
Update on: geico - story # 2910,8/12
On 8/18/00 I received a letter from GEICO Legal Department Counsel, Dana Albertini in response to my request to GEICO's SEAL Team for assistance. The SEAL Team is advertised by GEICO as "committed to providing military personnel with the "best possible" and "unbeatable"
insurance service in addition to them being an "Advocate" for the military.
After over three months of communicating with this SEAL Team, I have not received one piece of correspondence from them, they have not acknowledged or denied the obvious and proven gross negligence of GEICO that I had protested to them, and only this past Friday did I finally receive from GEICO's Legal Department a response to my charges against GEICO. This SEAL Team, after receiving many letters from me documenting and detailing the negligence and deceit of GEICO has not done one thing except to refer me back to GEICO. This is not being an "Advocate" or
showing any concern for the "worst possible" service that I have
received.
The manner in which my situation has been handled by GEICO's SEAL Team clearly indicates that it is only one more piece of "whitewash and brainwash" by GEICO to lull military and ex-military members into a "false sense of security" with promises of "unbeatable service" that GEICO has no intention to provide. It is also clear that this Team has not been allowed the "independence" that is so necessary if they in fact are intended to be allowed to be an "Advocate" for military personnel as advertised. This is a matter which as time permits, I intend to formally complain to the Arizona Attorney General for "Fraudulent Advertising." It is one more rip-off on the part of GEICO!
Now I will address GEICO's letter dated August 15 which
generally, not specifically addresses only a part of my complaints to them. It is a letter that although indicating that the writer, Counsel Dana Albertini would actually provide specifics, really does not and I will explain.
First, Ms. Albertini states, "It is my determination that the claim was handled properly and in full accordance with the laws of the State of Arizona" and I will strenuously disagree.By no stretch of the imagination has GEICO acted in good faith with my wife and I as policyholders.
(1) GEICO has totally ignored our request to them for information prior to my wife's hearing.information that would have been beneficial to her defense.
(2) Charged my wife on 12/9/98 for 100% responsibility for this accident without adequate information, completely
ignored information on the police report that clearly negated their rimary basis, and intentionally implied in their letter that they were in possession of information that they knew they did not have.
(3) Misrepresented to the Arizona Dept. Of insurance that they had a witness statement, when in fact they had only "a comment" by an individual who has refused to back up that "comment" with any formal statement to GEICO. A supposed witness, who could never pass a credibility test and GEICO has the documentation to support that fact.
(4) Misrepresented a fact to the AZ Dept. Of Insurance when they stated in writing that they had a "statement of claim" from the other driver when they had only a claim and intentionally ignored evidence in their possession that clearly proved that that driver had been avoiding giving them a statement.
(5) Deceitfully and intentionally misused the information from a key witness by looking at and only considering one comment from that individual that was beneficial to GEICO to support their charge against my wife while intentionally ignoring other information from that witness that added credibility to my wife and showed the deception of the investigating officers of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Dept.
(6) Lied, in writing to us their policyholders as to who interviewed that witness and for over a year has refused to respond to or deny my charge of that lie. (THERE ARE MORE INSTANCES).
Also, Ms Albertini states, "We have been receptive throughout the entire claim process to consider any substantive proof in support of your assertions that your wife was not liable and we have repeatedly asked you to provide said proof. You have been provided ample time to substantiate your claim, yet we have received nothing from you that factually supports your conclusion."
RESPONSE: Ms Albertini (1) carefully and conveniently ignores the eight pages of documentation that was sent to GEICO on 2/8/99 that clearly destroys any possibility of credibility for their witness (that we provided and they misused). Credibility that should not have been extended to that witness even without that documentation since he refused to formally acknowledge his accusation against my wife.
(2) Ignores documentation provided by myself that proves the contrivance of police and the bias of Peoria Justice Court Hearing Officer, Glen Hutchinson.
(3) Ignores my charge of GEICO lying and misrepresentation. (4)
Ignores evidence provided to GEICO that totally refutes the entire basis of their charge against my wife.
This statement by Ms. Albertini is just one example of how GEICO
consistently avoids facing facts and that is to try to put the blame back on the consumer. They have done it a number of times in this matter. It is a ploy that works with entities such as the Arizona Department of Insurance who do not have the courage to battle a company the size of GEICO. Mr. Kidd, of the GEICO SEAL Team recently stated to me that he could not believe the size of our claims file.
Additionally, this statement by Ms. Albertini reeks of hypocrisy. I have offered GEICO $1,000.00 if they can provide me in writing, one iota of credible evidence against my wife for this accident and Ms Albertini refuses to provide that information. Every iota of basis for their charge against my wife has been refuted and Ms. Albertini has clearly indicated that GEICO "has not" used the conclusions of the court as a basis against my wife, so what do they have as evidence or basis? Absolutely nothing!!!
Now, Ms. Abertini, is advising me that we have not sent any
"substantive proof" of Sandra's innocence and this makes me wonder exactly what form of government her and GEICO adhere to!!! I have been raised as an American and I spent twenty plus years in the military service of this country partly to preserve a concept that has been adopted by every American and that is,
As americans, we are innocent until proven guilty
Ms. Albertini endorses GEICO's charge against my wife but refuses to state any "substantive proof or basis" to support that charge.instead, according to Ms. Albertini and GEICO, "my wife is guilty until she proves her innocence". GEICO policyholders can be held responsible by GEICO without basis and must prove their innocence. This situation is
un-American and is worsened by the fact that GEICO intentionally ignores evidence that is sent to them.
So that the record is clear to everyone, ever since this accident has occurred, GEICO and every party to it have been begged in writing to sit and discuss the total facts of the matter and that plea has been ignored by everyone concerned from the police officers who contrived and conspired against my wife to Governor Hull. GEICO has remained as far distant from the truth as possible because they know that they do not have a leg to stand on in their charge against my wife and the indifference and ignorance that they have subjected me to since 11/10/98.
GEICO knows the truth but contemptuously avoids facing it.
Next, Ms. Albertini states, "I am aware that you have refuted much of the evidence that was used a a basis for the liability determination".
RESPONSE: I have refuted the totality of the basis of GEICO's
letter of determination dated 12/9/98 and the only other "supposed" evidence that GEICO has indicated to us is the "witness statement" that by no stretch of the imagination could ever pass a test of credibility.
The other driver stated to police per two separate supplemental
police reports that my wife did not stop at her stop sign. However, these same police testified at my wife's hearing that they believe both drivers stopped and GEICO's "supposed witness" has verified that my wife stopped prior to the golf cart. This is the same driver who avoided giving a statement to GEICO for over four and one half months because she could not speak English. The same driver who had no problem at the accident scene in explaining to my wife how to work her radio, discussed
her physical condition to a nurse, and performed security duties that demanded her ability to speak english for Pinkerton Security Service. There is absolutely no credibility here.
Now we come to the evidence presented at court and very simply
stated, there was none. There was a great deal of bias and ignorance of the law by the Hearing Officer, Glen Hutchinson, but no evidence!
Ms. Albertini states in her letter that, "we did review the
transcript and conviction that was provided to us and the fact is that the results supported our conclusion". Ms. Albertini states that the "results" of my wife's hearing supported GEICO's conclusion but cites no evidence that was presented at that hearing. Police at that hearing presented "only" statements that they clearly indicated to be assumption, supposition, and as one stated "It's useful to believe" (A statement that should qualify him for the GEICO claims Dept.). Has GEICO considered
this???
Next, we take a look at Arizona Law (ARS 28-1596) which states that "The state is required to prove the violation charged by a preponderance of the evidence" and in his closing statement, Hearing Officer Glen Hutchinson stated, "I'm going to find you responsible Miss Updike. Just the position for your vehicle, while this isn't failure to yield from a private drive." That hearing officer determines my wife to be responsible for this accident on a basis that he acknowledges "not to be the charge against her" in clear violation of ARS 28-1596.
Additionally, it is important to note that my wife explained the position of her vehicle in her opening statement and the police did not use "position" in their finding of cause for the accident in the hearing.
This is compounded further by Glen Hutchinson earlier in the hearing denying my wife's defense the opportunity to address "speed" of the vehicles because speed was not a factor in the charge against her. He allowed himself the privilege of using any factor (position of vehicle) available to him while he intentionally denied my wife the same right.
Glen Hutchinson also denied my wife's defense the opportunity to
question police on their findings upon inspection of the damage to the other vehicle and he disallowed that defense because "he did not want them to make a conclusion based on insufficient facts." He denied my wife testimony that could have been more material and substantive than any other presented by police.
He disallowed the testimony of our private investigator as to his communications with the driver of the third vehicle at the scene and completely ignored my wife's discussion of that vehicle and witness in her opening statement. The vehicle which my wife advised the police of at the accident scene and who they conveniently refused to admit to knowing about in order to make their contrived police report fit the manufactured charge against my wife. The vehicle that my wife advised
GEICO of in her claim to them on the evening of the accident.
0 comments