Beware of Geico!!
- Thread starter raspykart
- Start date
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.
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
Member
- :
- 2017 Mazda CX5 GT - Premium
MD5 said:
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.
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.
- :
- 2002 22A P5 and 2007 TR MS3
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"...
- :
- 2002 22A P5 and 2007 TR MS3
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...
bulwnkl said:
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
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.
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.
Last edited:
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). 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
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
Last edited:
paging_drburgos
Member
- :
- 2017 Mazda CX5 GT - Premium
offset_98 said:
its usually that expensive when fixed at a dealership.
paging_drburgos
Member
- :
- 2017 Mazda CX5 GT - Premium
jred321 said:
Werd!
jred321 said:
As I said, accountants are the ones who determine where we're going to show our profit.
jred321 said:
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.
Last edited:
SuperStretch18
Member
- :
- '07 CX-7 Sport, Black on Black; '04 Mazda3s
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.
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.
possible reasons:bulwnkl said:
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
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!
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!
- :
- 2008 Mazda5 5MT Sport w/ Popular Package
DAWIV said:
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
)
Last edited:
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.
