Don't buy insurance from a green lizzard

[Ken F]

There has been a discussion going on for several days on the LD rider list about Geico Insurence Company.

Basicly, what it boils down to is that if you ride your bike over 500 miles in one day and then have an accident, they can deny your claim.

It also seems that in some states there is a possibility that if you use a radar detector on your bike, you are also eligible for cancelation/denial of claims.

Check your policies!

The word is that Progressive and Dairyland don't have any of these exclusions.

460

[moondog]

Yep, thats what my policy says but I can't ride over 200 miles before my back is killing me so I am not going to worry about it

[saddleman]

I do both on a daily basis so I'll stick just with Allstate.

[rockbottom]

I thought the Geico exclusion was only for contests which call for riding more than 500 miles in a day.

[moondog]

I thought the Geico exclusion was only for contests which call for riding more than 500 miles in a day.

My policy reads: "(e) any contest which sanctions continuous riding
for 24 or more hours and/or mileage accumulation
in excess of 500 miles per 24 hour period."

I suppose, reading this again, both fall under "contest which sanctions". So if I am riding over 500 miles in a day just on a whim then I'm covered. Never did over 500 miles and doubt I ever will.

[Visian]

geico has always been anti-radar detector. which is why, even though i don't use an RD, i would not do business with them.

ian

[rockbottom]

I won't do business with them because their commercials annoy the dickens out of me.

[JDOCKERY132445]

I use the company which will give me the cheapest premiums for the coverage. When I rode only vintage bikes, I used Hagerty now I use GEICO. I also use a radar detector.

[JDOCKERY132445]

I have 6 vehicles insured through GEICO and all of them have detectors.

I had to do a google search to find out if GEICO refuses coverage to people who own radar detectors. It was not in my policy statements and the internet only showed that GEICO tried to pull this in Maryland and that the Insurance Institute stopped them from doing it. If any of you have better information, post it.


Until then, I will regard it as an urban legend.

[osbornk]

I have 6 vehicles insured through GEICO and all of them have detectors.

I had to do a google search to find out if GEICO refuses coverage to people who own radar detectors. It was not in my policy statements and the internet only showed that GEICO tried to pull this in Maryland and that the Insurance Institute stopped them from doing it. If any of you have better information, post it.


Until then, I will regard it as an urban legend.

I learned in 31+ years handling claims that if there is no exclusion in the policy sent to you, they can't deny coverage. The state insurance departments are real picky about what can and cannot be denied. When you have a problem, a call to the Bureau of Insurance can move mountains.

[Ken F]

I'm sorry, I misposted that. The radar detector questions were either verbal or on an application form. If you admitted to owning one, they would deny you coverage.

And yes, the exclusion states being involved in any contest or event which involves riding over 500 miles in 24 hours.

Pretty much voids any IBA ride and many rallys.

I would hazzard a guess that anyone riding their bike over 500 miles in one day could also be denied coverage.

460

[ka5ysy]

I would hazzard a guess that anyone riding their bike over 500 miles in one day could also be denied coverage.

460

No, you are wrong. Policy exclusions are very specific because the general rule in contract law is that any ambiguity is held against the proponent (in this case the insurance company), and most states have severe penalty provisions on the companies for improperly denying valid claims. The GEICO exclusion is specific to sanctioned contest rides some of which are infamous for killing riders.

[ka5ysy]

I won't do business with them because their commercials annoy the dickens out of me.

Gekko , Caveman, Eyeballs ?:D

[xp8103]

I wouldn't by a candy-bar from Geico. Back in the 80's (early 90's?) Car and Driver did a piece on how Geico was providing grants to local police forces to allow them to purchase traffic enforcement equipment (radar guns and the like).

The lizard can go screw.

[AKBeemer]

Geico was providing grants to local police forces to allow them to purchase traffic enforcement equipment (radar guns and the like).

Seems reasonable to me. I think traffic enforcement is a good thing, even if I do occasionally break the rules myself.

[xp8103]

I see too much "circle of life" in it for my taste....

[MPMARTY]

Green Lizards suck!
I'm happy with USAA and have been for over thirty years. Great service and rates.

[RickG]

Seems reasonable to me. I think traffic enforcement is a good thing, even if I do occasionally break the rules myself.

It is the selective enforcement that I have an issue with. Hell I wish they would enforce certain traffic laws that have more to do with safety than just cherry picking speeders all day long .in the name of "Safety"

Rick G

[MPMARTY]

yakking on the cellphone, balancing a dog in their lap and putting on their eye shadow all at the same time. I hate them!

[lorazepam]

Seems reasonable to me. I think traffic enforcement is a good thing, even if I do occasionally break the rules myself.

It is cost effective for an insurance company to donate radar detectors to police departments. It is like giving themselves a raise. Get a ticket or two for 10 over the limit and watch your rates go up.

[xp8103]

Local PD and muni get the fine $$ and the insurance company gets the increased rate $$. Sounds like a win-win to me... :hungover:rolleyes:rolleyes

[TomDac]

I won't do business with them because their commercials annoy the dickens out of me.


my thoughts exactly.

[jforgo]

It is the selective enforcement that I have an issue with. Hell I wish they would enforce certain traffic laws that have more to do with safety than just cherry picking speeders all day long .in the name of "Safety"

Rick G

Completely agree. but what do you do when the fine structure itself is idiotic? Does not the fine structure encourage certain types of enforcement, and de facto show social priorities? I have been to traffic court in California, and watched how the fines for, say, 10-15 over on the freeway, were several times those for running red lights or stopsigns. I have watched LEO's observe , and join, cars not two car lengths apart going 70, and no one got pulled over. How safe is that?

I wonder if there is data available on proportion of tickets per type of offense? Common sense tells you that right of way, not speed, violations, are the primary cause of traffic accidents. How does LEO leadership really set their priorities? As a practical matter, it would seem on a 2 out of 3 basis for below:

Which offense is more dangerous?
Which is easier to enforce?
Which produces more $$$ for the public employee time spent per citation?

[racer7]

Geico also funded laser equipment development and purchases.

Their TV campaign is incredibly expensive and who do you think is paying for it? They also waste money on a lot of direct mail campaigns. Like the big drug companies, its a fair bet that marketing is a very large part of their budget- not a very admirable approach for an insurance company though it might be good for their exec bonuses.

It is one of a handful of American businesses that will never get a penny of my money. They are not on the driver's side.

[hintzir09]

Foremost Insurance Group (owned by Farmers Insurance) is a great company for motorcycles, boats, ATVs, motor homes, etc.

This is a biased opinion......see below:)