Geesh, this is insane.
GEICO sues Oakland County woman for not listing her 12-year-old daughter on car insurance policy
https://www.clickondetroit.com/news...onal-injury-protection-form-after-crash/SOUTHFIELD, Mich. – GEICO is suing a Southfield-area woman because she did not list her 12-year-old daughter, who does not drive, on her personal injury protection form.
According to the complaint, GEICO says they have no obligation to cover any costs from a crash last year.
Local 4 is sitting down with the woman after reporting on other Michigan families facing claim denials from GEICO due to not listing their children, who do not drive.
Cari McCaskill first got a GEICO policy in 2014. For over ten years, she said, there were no issues. That was until May 2, when she got into a crash while taking her 12-year-old daughter and her daughter’s friend to pick up food.
“The car came around, going about 40 or 5,0 trying to get around traffic and t-boned us,” McCaskill said.
She then submitted a claim, which included the police report.
“The police report listed my child and her friend in the car,” McCaskill said. “I had to list that on the claim. The process went as it normally does.”
She was told the car was totaled and was worth upward of $25,000.
Weeks went by, and she says she couldn’t get any information about the claim.
“I tried to log in to my app and wasn’t able to log in,” McCaskill said.
Then, she got this letter in the mail.
(Letter shown on site)
“It was letting me know that the claim had again been reviewed and they were not going to pay out the claim and they were canceling out my policy, retroactive to the last renewal date,” McCaskill said.
“And their reasoning was, because?” Local 4 asked.
“Because I had not listed my then 12-year-old, at the time, daughter, who doesn’t drive, who is not a driver, on the personal injury protection attestation,” she said.
Her attorney, Chris Camper, says she didn’t hear anything from GEICO until she was served with papers.
After the accident, her daughter’s friend went to the doctor just to get checked out. Camper says GEICO asked the girl’s mother if she was getting care and, if so, where.
GEICO’s complaint is addressed to both McCaskill and that doctor’s office, saying GEICO has no duty to pay any collision or personal injury benefits because McCaskill did not list her daughter.
But the doctor’s office isn’t trying to get GEICO to cover any cost of care, and Camper says they didn’t file an answer to the complaint.
“Making her basically feel as though she’s done something wrong and that she may be stuck with a $25,000 or $26,000 lease,” Camper said.
“It kind of felt like being thrown away,” McCaskill said. “I get it’s a company, but I did my part.”
“As we stated last week: ‘GEICO complies with all state insurance regulations regarding claims and coverage.’ We are unable to comment on pending litigation,” GEICO said in response to Local 4.
Local 4 also reached out to the specific lawyers representing GEICO in this case, but have not heard back.
