Beware of Geico!!

[raspykart]

We have had Geico for a while now and we finally needed to replace the windshield on the Mazda5. Well we have a $500 comp deductible as I'm sure many people do, to save money regardless of insurance company. Geico however, doesn't have the typical $100 ded for glass specifically, so now we're stuck with paying $500 towards a windshield. Thinking its time to switch back to Farmers.... just thought I'd give ya'll a heads up.

[zoomzoom mazda5]

It all depends on what state your in, 3 yrs ago my windshield was crack and Geico replace and pay for it. No money out of pocket for me, sorry to hear that about your windshield. Good luck!

[jred321]

i don't think that's geico's fault at all, sounds more like you should have read what you were buying before buying it. they probably offer separate glass coverage that you chose not to buy (whether you realized it or not). i also don't know that i would call a $100 glass deductible "typical" either, glass is normally a separate coverage all together

[raspykart]

i don't think that's geico's fault at all, sounds more like you should have read what you were buying before buying it. they probably offer separate glass coverage that you chose not to buy (whether you realized it or not). i also don't know that i would call a $100 glass deductible "typical" either, glass is normally a separate coverage all together

ya I agree that I made an assumption... I asked them about getting separate glass coverage... it doesn't exist, thats why I'm a bit torn off about em. Also I found Progessive to be the same way as Geico. I've also beend doing a little searching and it sounds like Geico is not the company to have in the case of an accident... poor parts used for repair, they also stated if its too much we'll have to pay more than our deductible.... dumbasses should slow the roll on commercials so as to provide better service.

[MSP032879]

I remember when I had a $50 deductible for collision on usaa when i was living in NC. The good 'ol days, $300 full coverage for 6 months

[Mazda_Tech]

why would you go through insurance for a windshield anyway, they are cheap enough to just buy it yourself.

[Boosted03MSP]

Yeah i just had my MSP windshield replaced last month and it was 150$ locally. I would leave insurance out of it.

[jandree22]

Sorry about your situation, but I couldn't resist :D

http://www.adweek.com/adweek/photos/2006/09/12_CR_News_GEICO.jpg

[jred321]

ya I agree that I made an assumption... I asked them about getting separate glass coverage... it doesn't exist, thats why I'm a bit torn off about em. Also I found Progessive to be the same way as Geico. I've also beend doing a little searching and it sounds like Geico is not the company to have in the case of an accident... poor parts used for repair, they also stated if its too much we'll have to pay more than our deductible.... dumbasses should slow the roll on commercials so as to provide better service.
indeed. lots of people switch off geico after they have a claim with them because of the way they treat their customers. depending on your state insurers may be required to use OEM parts but most do not so you're at the liberty of your insurer in many respects (you can always fight it but it's not always worth the hassle). you should never have to pay more than your deductible unless the damage passes your stated coverages for the policy, if they ever try that contact a lawyer because that's blatantly illegal

[Maxx Mazda]

Why would you use insurance to get a new windshield?

[ProtoType5]

I've had Geico for 6 years, two accidents..neither my fault and they treated me easy as hell....as far as glass and lens replacement, I have that covered under "road debris" or something, and it's no deductible...I really couldn't be much happier...They always had my car fixed in a couple days and never questioned the accidents or the need to replace parts I thought were damaged.

1st Accident....70mph and hit very large wolf dog....$2,200 damage to passenger front end....cost me $500.00

2nd Accident....Hit and Run in my apartment parking lot.....$6,200 damage to driver rear quarter panel, door, tire...and some other stuff...cost me NADA...

So I can't complain...

[raspykart]

hmm I'll have to check out the "road debris" coverage. Anybody ever replace their windshield on the Mazda5 yet? Its freaking huge, I hope its cheap, but I have little confidence in that.

[jandree22]

...windshield on the Mazda5 yet? Its freaking huge
I guess it sucks in your situation, but otherwise I love the huge windshield. Feels so open and roomy in there with how far it extends over the dash and then almost reaches up to your head.

[vashpr]

That happened to me like a year ago with my VW golf but i didn't call them to replace my windshield because it'll cost what u said. But i called a local company that actually install the windshield whenever you are, at home, work... and it cost around $225. So no 500 deductible or any of that.

[geezerz99]

Yeah i just had my MSP windshield replaced last month and it was 150$ locally. I would leave insurance out of it.

we're talking about a mazda5 and not a protege that most auto glass place have replacement windshield for. I had mine replaced withing a year of the mazda5's release and most auto glass place didn't even know that a mazda5 existed, try finding a windshield for it was even harder. When they did it was like $400.

[jandree22]

most auto glass place didn't even know that a mazda5 existed, try finding a windshield for it was even harder.
Should've asked for a Premacy windshield... that would've cooked their noodle (shady)

[SuperStretch18]

Why would you use insurance to get a new windshield?
Not sure if it is just Allstate or just Florida, but I will never pay for my own windshield. During Hurricane Wilma about a year ago, I got a small crack in my windshield from some random flying debris. Small crack + 1 week's driving = giant crack in windshield. Allstate covered the full replacement; no deductible, no increase in premiums.

[jred321]

depends on state laws, insurer, etc... as to whether they cover it, what type of claim it counts as (able to increase premium or not), deductible and if so amount, all that fun stuff. in CT glass is an optional coverage insurers can provide and they can write it how they want pretty much. in others it falls in the same category as normal accidents so you're subject to whatever deductible you have set. big variances, mostly at the state law levels

[BOOSTR]

Florida insurance law mandates that the deductible does not apply to glass breakage when the insured vehicle has comprehensive coverage in place.

Why would you turn in a windshield claim? Why not? Glass breakage is a covered peril on your policy if you have comprehensive coverage. So depending on your deductible it makes sense to file a claim.

Claims service or lack thereoff is what really distinguishes on insurer from the next IMO. But since an insurance policy is often looked to as a commodity, its price sensitive and people want a deal.

[paging_drburgos]

i work for an insurance company and can tell you that progressive and geico (direct competitors) dont do "warm and fuzzy". "warm and fuzzy" costs a little extra. All insurance companies are different which is why their prices vary the way they do. Geico may have cost less than your previous insurance company but now you see why.

And yeah local glass places will only charge you in the $200 range to replace your windshield. So find out which costs less, your insurance or the guys in the phone book*.

Phone Book - A paper brick sometimes used for door stops, dumbells, and on the rare occasion if not already in the recycle bin to look up a phone number.

[raspykart]

I guess it sucks in your situation, but otherwise I love the huge windshield. Feels so open and roomy in there with how far it extends over the dash and then almost reaches up to your head.

yeah I dig the big windshield otherwise too..... thx for the tips guys... I'll post comments and findings after I get it replaced ;)

[MD5]

Have any of you priced the windshield on a 5???

Last year when I had mine done they were a dealer item only and ran about $600. The moulding is about another $50.

I have USAA and my deductible was $200.

I have since called and my deductible is now $50. It cost me about $2 extra per 6 months for that. Since I replaced the windsheild in my 2003 Mustang twice, my wifes Excursion once, and now the 5, I figure it's worth the extra couple of bucks.

[paging_drburgos]

Have any of you priced the windshield on a 5???

Last year when I had mine done they were a dealer item only and ran about $600. The moulding is about another $50.

I have USAA and my deductible was $200.

I have since called and my deductible is now $50. It cost me about $2 extra per 6 months for that. Since I replaced the windsheild in my 2003 Mustang twice, my wifes Excursion once, and now the 5, I figure it's worth the extra couple of bucks.

Try calling a local glass place in the phone book. The last time i had my Montero's windshield replaced i called the dealer and they wanted 6 bills. I then called around and found a place that would drive to me and fix it on site for $220 total. They were done in less than an hour. When they were finished they told me that there next stop was the local Honda dealership. Apparently the dealerships call these guys to fix their windshields and then mark up the price. Now you know.

[MD5]

Try calling a local glass place in the phone book. The last time i had my Montero's windshield replaced i called the dealer and they wanted 6 bills. I then called around and found a place that would drive to me and fix it on site for $220 total. They were done in less than an hour. When they were finished they told me that there next stop was the local Honda dealership. Apparently the dealerships call these guys to fix their windshields and then mark up the price. Now you know.


I called around and searched the 'net.

There was no better price to be had on the 5 windshield.

On the other hand, I had my wife's 04 Excursion replaced the same month and it cost me $150.

What a difference.(hand)

[bulwnkl]

FYI-- Geico used to give radar guns out to police departments across the USA for free PROVIDED that they agreed to write a certain number of tickets per month (or week or quarter or year) with them. Why? They had their story, but the fact is that every time a Geico-insured motorist gets a ticket, their premiums go up. So, I know why I think they did it. GEEK-O will never, EVER have my business.

[offset_98]

What the?! I paid like $230 for the windshield to be replaced on my sister's Chevy Malibu. That was just 2 years ago! When did glass get so expensive?!

[ProtoType5]

I've had a good record with Geico and got two tickets with them in the last year...One failure to obey a traffic signal and one 23mph over 83 in a 60...After getting no ticket with them for 4 years, I guess I was put on some kind of premium list..I called immediately after getting the first ticket to see if they would increase and they said "NO"...

[bulwnkl]

The first ticket was not a speeding ticket. Perhaps they are a different company now, but somehow I don't think so. I feel bad for you now that you have a 23-over speeding ticket. I'll bet the WaSP backed it down so it wasn't 25-over or more, didn't he?

[ProtoType5]

Yes...only 10mph or so...That would have been a hard one to call the boss about....I can't make it to work, I was driving to work and all of a sudden I was going over 90...I don't think I'll make it in today...

[jred321]

FYI-- Geico used to give radar guns out to police departments across the USA for free PROVIDED that they agreed to write a certain number of tickets per month (or week or quarter or year) with them. Why? They had their story, but the fact is that every time a Geico-insured motorist gets a ticket, their premiums go up. So, I know why I think they did it. GEEK-O will never, EVER have my business.

do you have an article about this? i'd love to see it so i can pass it along to my coworkers if it is true. not only does that sound illegal but it also sounds like it would not make much sense for geico to do, at least from a collecting more premiums perspective as most profit in the insurance industry doesn't come from premiums (lately that's changed a little but as a whole it's true) and the amount extra they receive would be relatively small, especially considering the ill will it would generate with customers

[bulwnkl]

If you can find an old enough issue of Car and Driver, it was published there. It was in Patrick Bedard's or William Jeans' column as I recall, but it may have also been a regular article.

As to it not being a profitable practice, that statement just makes no sense at all. If people are driving the same way, but suddenly get more tickets, there is NO increase in risk to the insurance company because the behavior is identical. Nevertheless, the premiums go up. Beyond that, where is it that you think profits in the insurance industry come from if not premiums? That's the revenue source for insurance companies. Even if fatter profits come from some other investment vehicle, those investments are only possible because of premium revenue. So, the more you have the more profit you (can) make. Remember that which segment of a business makes a profit according to the financial statements is chiefly a function of the accounting section, not reality. No premiums, no insurance company.

[jred321]

profits rarely come from premiums directly and it is very common for insurance companies to turn a profit while actually taking an underwriting loss (pay out more in claims than take in from premiums, http://insurance.cch.com/rupps/combined-ratio.htm) (http://insurance.cch.com/rupps/combined-ratio.htm%29). profits are turned by investing the money taken in by premiums before they have to be paid out in claims.

i didn't say it wouldn't be profitable, i said the profits would be small and the ill will and potential loss of customers would outweigh any gains seen there. let's estimate on the high side that they earn an extra $1M in profit in premium dollars from police writing more tickets (policies can be cancelled at any time so if they get a big rate increase the insured will more than likely just switch carriers, so actual profit should be very low. Plus how many of the "extra" tickets from the guns will be geico customers?). that will barely show up on the company's 10K (net written premium is usually rounded to the nearest million). insurance investments are typically very safe and have a low return rate, so maybe that $1M goes up to $1.1M. not a significant source of revenue

is it nothing? no. is it significant? no, and the potential windfall outweighs the small benefit. customer retention is HUGE in the industry as retained customers are essentially no-cost revenue as you don't have to go through the cost of writing the policy again.

taking in more money without increasing risk HAS to be profitable, at least in the short term, it just doesn't make sense to me for an insurer to do it that way because of the small profit for the possible long term effects. i see it as the potential extra premium is a side benefit to their real reason, not a main driving force

[paging_drburgos]

What the?! I paid like $230 for the windshield to be replaced on my sister's Chevy Malibu. That was just 2 years ago! When did glass get so expensive?!


its usually that expensive when fixed at a dealership.

[paging_drburgos]

profits are turned by investing the money taken in by premiums before they have to be paid out in claims

Werd!

[bulwnkl]

profits rarely come from premiums directly and it is very common for insurance companies to turn a profit while actually taking an underwriting loss (pay out more in claims than take in from premiums, http://insurance.cch.com/rupps/combined-ratio.htm) (http://insurance.cch.com/rupps/combined-ratio.htm%29). profits are turned by investing the money taken in by premiums before they have to be paid out in claims.

As I said, accountants are the ones who determine where we're going to show our profit.


i see it as the potential extra premium is a side benefit to their real reason, not a main driving force

What do you see as their "real" reason? Again, there's no change in the behavior that suddenly generates more tickets, so there's no increase in risk or claims paid. There's only more money available to put into other investments. Also, there would never be (or perhaps never have been) an increase in customer ill will from the practice had it not been published in at least Car and Driver because no one would have known that Geico bought the radar units and everyone knows (knew) that your rates go up when you get (a) ticket(s). The basic rule of investigation applies: Follow the money.

It could well be that they no longer engage in this practice. The article was from well over a decade ago (but fewer than 2 IIRC), and the insurance industry has changed over the course of that time. However, just like Dad won't do business with Ford since they made a conscious decision to let people burn instead of fixing the Pinto because it was cheaper to pay the families off than pay the engineers, I won't do business with Geek-O.

[SuperStretch18]

Here's an exerpt from one of Patrick Bedard's articles (I cut back due to the length, but you get the idea). There is a whole line of laser guns nicknamed GEICO guns because the company bailed out the manufacturer. There are no press releases, but the information is available if you look for it...

Laser Loses a Legal Test
By PATRICK BEDARD

This started with an ordinary $96 speeding ticket clocked by a laser gun, exceptional for only one detail: Joe Maccarone's neighbor got it.

Maccarone is 44, a lawyer in Long Valley, New Jersey. As his neighbor fretted over the four-point ticket, Maccarone remembers saying to him, "I'll go talk to the prosecutor, get it down to two points. Won't charge you."

What Maccarone didn't know was that the prosecutor had been waiting for a defendant with a lawyer to contest one of these laser-based tickets. The New Jersey State Police had only recently starting using laser guns. Now they needed a test case to get the courts to validate police use of them. When new enforcement devices are used to produce evidence in a trial, they must be proven in court to be accurate and reliable. When a judge hears enough testimony to be convinced that the device is scientifically reliable, he takes "judicial notice" of the device. From then on in that court, defendants can argue that the device was misapplied, misused, or misconstrued, but they can't argue that it doesn't work. Judicial notice was taken of radar years ago.

For this speeding case, the prosecutor brought in an expert witness, who received payment for his testimony from the gun's maker, Laser Technology, Inc. This witness testified that the LTI 20-20 Marksman used the same technology developed in the NASA space program. The defendant had a lawyer, and that means there's a chance that a guilty verdict would be appealed to a higher court. If that higher court confirms the correctness of the trial court's verdict, that would establish judicial notice in all courts within that district.

When Maccarone went to see the prosecutor, he was told there would be no deals. "Just the way he treated me, it pissed me off. I thought, He wants a fight, he'll get a fight."

When the courtroom slugfest was over in June 1996, all of New Jersey's "GEICO guns" - so named to commemorate the $950,000 loan from auto-insurer GEICO that rescued cash-short Laser Technology in 1991, allowing it to complete the LTI 20-20 gun - were benched. Superior Court Judge Reginald Stanton ruled that the LTI 20-20 was inadmissible as evidence. Technically, the precedent knocks out GEICO guns only in Stanton's district, but the New Jersey State Police have stopped using laser guns all across the state while they search for a legal comeback strategy.

In the future, you can bet prosecutors will be careful not to piss off Joe Maccarone. Purely as a favor to his neighbor, he burned through $12,000 of his own billable time, rounded up three expert witnesses who would testify against the GEICO gun, put himself through tutoring so he could understand the technology, and tried the case, which amounted to five days of testimony over two weeks. He also was able to combine his neighbor's case with almost 200 other pending laser speeding cases and get the issue tried in Superior Court, not the lower traffic court. That way, if he won, precedent would be set barring laser. Joe Maccarone definitely knows how to get even.

Judge Stanton ruled against the GEICO gun for the simple reason that LTI couldn't prove that it works accurately. Police all across the country, it turns out, have been buying LTI 20-20s on nothing but LTI's word that they work as advertised. When finally pressed for test data to demonstrate that the device produces accurate readings in typical traffic situations, LTI could not prove its own claims.

[jred321]

What do you see as their "real" reason?
possible reasons:
1) lessening severity of accidents because people will travel slower due to fear of getting a ticket
2) increase public relations with police departments as ins cos frequently deal with them
3) tax-deductible donation with additional benefit of slightly increased premiums

only they know their real reason but i still think at best the increased premium is a minimum and a side benefit

[BOOSTR]

That guy clearly has a beef with Geico and doesn't know how insurance works imo. Auto is a loss leader for just about every carrier whether its commercial or personal lines. No one is making money on auto for the most part. A ticket in and of itself does not result in an increase in premium.

Who cares if Geico gave all of the nations law enforcement agencies radar guns? They do not write enough business nationwide nor are they even a top 5 carrier in most of their markets. So you get a chargeable speeding ticket from an officer with a gun supplied by Geico, chances are you won't be a Geico insured. BFD!

[coolmazda5]

A ticket in and of itself does not result in an increase in premium.

Hmmm, possibly is Sunday (coffee) and I'm misreading this but, yes, a single ticket increases your premium, and the increase usually comes during the next coverage cycle after the incident.

Several people I know (and myself) have been impacted by this, and we have completely different insurance providers plus live in different US states. Now, as per Canada, I've been told they are even more strict (nailbyt). I've driven there but I've been lucky not to have been stopped by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police fellows (oh man, just the name is scary enough ;))

Is there a trick I may not know of to avoid it? As far as I know, once in the driver's record, it doesn't matter where you live (OK OK, same within the same Country I should say :D)

[BOOSTR]

It all depends on the nature of the ticket and in the case of speeding the amount of mph's over the posted speed limit. All companies have different underwriting guidelines, thus some companies may not switch rating tiers or surcharge your rates for a ticket. If you've been a good driver with a zero loss history you may catch a break. Depends on the individual company involved.

[bulwnkl]

That quote from Bedard's is more recent than the article I was referring to (sort of a later follow-up), but not all that much. Thanks for posting it.

As for Geico wanting to reduce claims payout through reduced speed, there is insurmountable evidence from decades of federal research that shows that lower traffic speed does NOT reduce accidents. The insurance companies know this as well any entity out there, yet they (some of them at least) still want more speeding tickets issued. Trying to "rescue" a traffic speed measuring device manufacturer? But they don't want more tickets issued? Tickets issued for behavior identical to that prior to the issuance, and therefore with no change in claims paid? Follow the money.

I'll buy the PR w/PDs. They help the PDs make huge cash even though there's no demonstrable safety benefit, so the PDs in turn treat the ins co nicely by writing more tickets. Follow the money.

Tax-deductible contribution? There are literally millions of those that would actually BENEFIT people, and many (dozens? hundreds? thousands?) that would actually increase safety (and reduce claims paid) simultaneously. But one that comes with the "additional benefit of slightly increased premiums," despite zero increase in safety and therefore zero reduction of claims paid? Follow the money.

[jred321]

As for Geico wanting to reduce claims payout through reduced speed, there is insurmountable evidence from decades of federal research that shows that lower traffic speed does NOT reduce accidents.
i did not say reduce the number of accidents but instead reduce the other aspect of a claim, the severity. the faster you go the more damage you do so the more the ins co has to pay

it sounds like you think the ins co is out to get you. in actuality their goal is to accurately measure the risk presented, take premium for it, invest that money until such time that the premium paid is returned to the insured through a claim. the goal is to basically break even. given the market some years things are a little better than even, some years worse. the key is the accurate pricing of premium to risk presented and assessing that risk beforehand is tricky

if this small time action upsets you then you better not be around in a few years when insurers require you to have a device in your car that monitors your speed, distance travelled and location in real time (along with many other variables, think OBD II or III when that comes out) to calculate your exact risk presented. but even then the goal is still to take in as much premium as you're going to pay out in claims with profit coming from the time in between premium collection and claim payout

[coolmazda5]

It all depends on the nature of the ticket and in the case of speeding the amount of mph's over the posted speed limit. All companies have different underwriting guidelines, thus some companies may not switch rating tiers or surcharge your rates for a ticket. If you've been a good driver with a zero loss history you may catch a break. Depends on the individual company involved.

Gotcha, thanks. Out of curiosity I just checked my current policy and it is back to a "good driver" mode. The one time ticket came around 2003, so the "black list" seems to get cleared out after a couple of years or so (angel).

[bulwnkl]

I don't think the ins co is "out to get" me individually. I know that the ins co is out to make money, NOT to break even. Insurance companies are some of the most profitable businesses in this country, and this not-at-all-small incident was an excellent illustration of that point.