GEICO INSURANCE RIPOFF ONCE THEY PAY ON A CLAIM YOU BECOME LIKE A CRIMINAL TO THEM LAKELAND Florida

To Sherri: the fact that my husband was unconcious is what I'm getting at. Have you ever lived in New Port Richey, this town is very, very small and all officer stick together to protect their own.

They just simply put down on their report that my husband refused to take the test so that all the pieces would fit together, only one state trooper offered to go to court on our behalf to testify that my husban was unable to sign.But our dear lawyer would'nt even consider this. The test is NOT down unless there is a signature. I HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE, I ONLY PRAY NOTHING LIKE THIS HAPPENS TO YOU.

To Mike: With you, I better not write too fast, so that I don't make a mistake in my spelling, otherwise I will find myself in court and found guilty if you were the judge.UNCONSCIOUS (happy now?) Really, I trust this never happens to you, but if it dose, you will remember me. If my husband had a any problems before or a history of bad accidents, why would Geico's competitors would accept under their insurance policy,BECAUSE THEY CHECKED HIS PAST DRIVING HISTORY AND FOUND IT PERFECT!. And by the way, the insurance is much, much less.

To David: Geico paid on the claim with the neighbor because he also had Geico, and by the way THE NEIGHBOR GOT A TICKET FOR THAT ACCIDENT.

TO ALL 3 OF YOU, I PRAY EVERYDAY NO ONE HAS TO GO THROUGH WHAT WE HAVE GONE THROUGH. Do not come to NEW PORT RICHEY, EVER! Or at least, Do NOT BE of a different race AND LIVE HERE! We are hard working, clean, law abiding people. We have nothing to hide, and on my son's life, I AM TELLING THE TRUTH!

I know it's a story hard to believe in this time and age, but it does happen, and by the way, Geico usually answers some of these reports, WHY HAVE'NT THEY DONE SO NOW! WHERE ARE THEY??

I will not be answering any more to this ripoff site. I'm sad to see how people can be so naive.

To get a full picture of the situation.

Was he convicted of any of the tickets you say he received in court? DUI or refusal of test.

Why did GEICO have to pay if your neighbor hit your car? Did he not have insurance. Insurance companies are known to go after others, if they know the party who did it. Though you might pay a deductible first, usually you get it back when they sue the person responsible or other persons insurance. Called subrogation. Did the police say it was your fault, so GEICO paid out?

You have you been with GEICO 9 years, wasted years, losing hard earned money. If you have accident forgivness, you must have been in there preferred company, getting their lowest rate.

I wonder and I am sure i am right, if you add up the premiums you paid for the last 9 years, you will probably have paid less for insurance than GEICO has paid out on all your claims, but you threw away your hard earned money...

It seems you have a lot of people out to get you and your family for some reason. The point is, you saythe lawyer did help just took your money, so i assume he lost the case and got the di and refusal of test, although i can't see any competent judge, lawyer, prosecuting attorney or other wise sticking an unconcious man with a refusal of test.

You say he has no DUI ever, so the lawyer did his job? Which is it?

I think there is alot being left out of this story.

Basically your husband was conviced of DUI, likely due to bad lawyer, so now he's screwed trying to get insurance anywhere. The facts simply don't matter at this point.

I'm wondering how an unconscious man could "refuse" (or consent to) a breathalizer test. I'm wondering how a nurse could misspell "unconscious."

Whenever your car collides with a police car, ambulance, or fire truck, it is AUTOMATICALLY your fault. That's just how the world works.

Basically your husband was conviced of DUI, likely due to bad lawyer, so now he's screwed trying to get insurance anywhere. The facts simply don't matter at this point.

I'm wondering how an unconscious man could "refuse" (or consent to) a breathalizer test. I'm wondering how a nurse could misspell "unconscious."

Whenever your car collides with a police car, ambulance, or fire truck, it is AUTOMATICALLY your fault. That's just how the world works.

Basically your husband was conviced of DUI, likely due to bad lawyer, so now he's screwed trying to get insurance anywhere. The facts simply don't matter at this point.

I'm wondering how an unconscious man could "refuse" (or consent to) a breathalizer test. I'm wondering how a nurse could misspell "unconscious."

Whenever your car collides with a police car, ambulance, or fire truck, it is AUTOMATICALLY your fault. That's just how the world works.

Basically your husband was conviced of DUI, likely due to bad lawyer, so now he's screwed trying to get insurance anywhere. The facts simply don't matter at this point.

I'm wondering how an unconscious man could "refuse" (or consent to) a breathalizer test. I'm wondering how a nurse could misspell "unconscious."

Whenever your car collides with a police car, ambulance, or fire truck, it is AUTOMATICALLY your fault. That's just how the world works.

Actually, if a patient is unconscious, then "implied consent" is given any any consents are marked as "patient unable to sign due to condition". You signed a consent for him to be treated when you arrived at the hospital, but as a nurse, you should know that blood alcohol/toxicology screens are done, as many states REQUIRE these in case of a motor vehicle accident with injuries.

Not trying to be rude, but I think that there is a lot you are not telling.

YES, THE POLICE OFFICERS WERE THERE WHEN THEY DREW THE BLOOD, I WAS HYSTERICAL, AND AGREED TO ALL. I KNEW THIS WOULD SHOW THEM THAT THEY WERE WRONG, SINCE THEY WERE ALREADY TELLING ME MY HUSBAND WAS DRINKING THAT NIGHT. I HAD NO DOUBT IN MY MIND, BUT I WANTED TO PROVE THIS TO THEM AND WHOLE HEARTEDLY SIGNED FOR THIS BLOOD TO BE DRAWN.

YOU ASKED , WHEN CAN A NURSE ORDER A TEST?? WHEN YOUR HUSBAND IS UNCONCIOUSE AFTER AN ACCIDENT.
YOU SEE, I DID'NT WORK AT THE HOSPITAL WHERE MY HUSBAND WAS TAKEN.
I WAS SIMPLY ASKED IF I CAN SIGN FOR THE BLOOD TEST THAT THE OFFICERS WANTED. AND I SAID YES, GO AHEAD AND TAKE ALL THE BLOOD WORK YOU NEED.
THATS HOW I CAN ORDER A BLOOD TEST,SATISFIED??

MY HUSBAND WAS NOT ABLE TO SIGN FOR THIS TEST AND SO I DID IT FOR HIM, BECAUSE I AM HIS WIFE!
NOT BECAUSE I AM A NURSE. THE HOSPITAL STAFF DOES'NT EVEN KNOW US, SO THE THOUGHT OF THE BLOOD BEING TAINTED IS SO OFF. I LIVE ABOUT TWO HOURS FROM THIS HOSPITAL, I SIMPLE SIGNED FOR THE BLOOD TEST TO BE DRAWN AND IT WAS ALL NEGATIVE.

And in many Emergency Departments, Registered Nurses are given the option to do so in trauma cases. However, if my husband were brought in, ethically, I would not be the one ordering any labs, x-rays or other treatments, as that can bite you in the a*s later on.

I can see where there may be a problem with GEICO and the police accepting a test ordered by a suspect's spouse. I am curious as to why Angie ordered a blood alcohol level test if she wasn't suspicious that he had been drinking, unless ordered to do so by the police/highway patrol (and usually they are present when blood is drawn for that, due to "chain-of-custody" issues).

Since when can a nurse "order" a test? I hate it when the bad cops set up people. Easy to claim, but I bet there is another side to this fairy tale.

You know, I noticed one thing about the initial report that got me wondering...would the same thing have happened if the incident in question were your 1st claim with Geico? Would another insurance company do the same on a 3rd claim?

Maybe you stummbled into limbo. Where is the line between justified cancelation for "risky" clients vs. bogus company policies that keep them rich?

Even if EVERYTHING in the original post were true, and I mean EVERYTHING (i.e. corruption, conspiracy), I think the reason why they would give you trouble about the claim is simply because you were in a position to handle your husband's blood test.

I am in no way suggesting you tampered with this crucial piece of evidence but...you had the means, opportunity and motive to do so. That alone makes it worthless to you. The only way that the evidence could be used would be AGAINST you, otherwise it is tainted. It doesn't matter whether you ordered it, saw it or simply worked at the same hospital where the test was done... the BIG question will always remain...Was the test really clean or negative or whatever?

Anyway, back to the subject. When you go against the grain of the normal course of business of any insurance company and file a claim...I'm sure they don't like it. That doesn't make them money and probably upsets them. Maybe after filing their first claim and getting resolution, people should seek another insurance through another company. Do insurance companies have a blacklist of customers whom they feel are high risks?

Is there such a thing as "spite" with these companies? I would be interested in hearing from folks on the inside. (and by "inside" I mean CURRENTLY on the inside, you jaded Ex-employees and upset customers can pipe down)

My question is...Should consumers worry about their insurance coverage (health, auto, other) if they had once filed a claim? What's the story?

You claim the police had a conflict of interest but you don't think you yourself had a biased opinion regarding your husband's treatment at the hospital?