- 1,016
Can a Carrier Cancel a Policy Because Insured Works for Firearms Industry?
- Thread starter BlockO
- Start date
Yes they can.
Why would it be a PR nightmare? If it is truly used in conjunction with a business, its totally legit and most people will understand this.
Now, if they dropped them for delivering meals to the ederly, that would be a PR nightmare.
Dan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
And by the way, its not 'works for' the firearm industry, its 'used in conjunction with', which is a huge difference.
Dan
Why would it be a PR nightmare? If it is truly used in conjunction with a business, its totally legit and most people will understand this.
Now, if they dropped them for delivering meals to the ederly, that would be a PR nightmare.
Dan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
And by the way, its not 'works for' the firearm industry, its 'used in conjunction with', which is a huge difference.
Dan
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #3
- 1,016
I was mistaking when I said "will become" a PR nightmare. This was just posted yesterday and has already went viral. Geico is getting slammed on social media sites.
" If it is truly used in conjunction with a business, its totally legit and most people will understand this."
I agree, but there are 2 problems with that:
- Public has so far only heard one side of the story and it appears that many have already made their mind up.
- Without blowing the image up to where you can read what is blacked out, you would never know that this is a commercial auto policy. I think that anyone who sees this story without looking closer will think it is a personal auto policy, like I did until I looked into it further.
Actually, if you look at the right hand side, basically the return address part, its very obviously a commercial policy, sold by Geico Commercial Insurance.
On top of that, the 'used in conjunction with' is clearly an indicator of a business use classification, not a personal use classification.
Of course, I'll grant you, I've read my share of these types of letters and may pick up on some subtleties that others miss. Even with that though, I don't see a big public outcry.
Dan
On top of that, the 'used in conjunction with' is clearly an indicator of a business use classification, not a personal use classification.
Of course, I'll grant you, I've read my share of these types of letters and may pick up on some subtleties that others miss. Even with that though, I don't see a big public outcry.
Dan
- 171
I'm not sure a PR nightmare has anything to do with prudent and legal risk selection on the part of insurance companies, or even rational accusations.
I remember reading not too long ago on a message board, consumers complaining about USAA's "political agenda," regarding not insuring any homes where weapons were kept loaded. It's hard to believe an insurance company, available to only the US Military and honorably discharged veterans, is promoting a political anti-gun position, instead of using wise risk selection criteria, but that was the takeaway from some customers.
Recently, there was a viral blog post with the title, "Progressive paid to defend My sister's killer," which made Progressive look like the biggest crooks in the industry. When you find out the details of the claim and the applicable state law, it's hard to think another insurance company would have handled the claim differently. Certainly, the PR fiasco could have been handled much better.
Thanks, Dan Lyles, for bringing this to our attention. In a world where talk of banning semi-automatic weapons is equated with "taking away our guns," We'll have to see if this Geico non-event has legs.
I remember reading not too long ago on a message board, consumers complaining about USAA's "political agenda," regarding not insuring any homes where weapons were kept loaded. It's hard to believe an insurance company, available to only the US Military and honorably discharged veterans, is promoting a political anti-gun position, instead of using wise risk selection criteria, but that was the takeaway from some customers.
Recently, there was a viral blog post with the title, "Progressive paid to defend My sister's killer," which made Progressive look like the biggest crooks in the industry. When you find out the details of the claim and the applicable state law, it's hard to think another insurance company would have handled the claim differently. Certainly, the PR fiasco could have been handled much better.
Thanks, Dan Lyles, for bringing this to our attention. In a world where talk of banning semi-automatic weapons is equated with "taking away our guns," We'll have to see if this Geico non-event has legs.
- Thread starter
- #6
- 1,016
I missed that. Good eye Dan.
- 15,041
Short Lane
Is the named insured. Perhaps they transport weapons or otherwise use the vehicle for business purposes? Something tells me they may not have been completely truthful in filling out the application. Perhaps they should be glad it is just a cancellation?
Is the named insured. Perhaps they transport weapons or otherwise use the vehicle for business purposes? Something tells me they may not have been completely truthful in filling out the application. Perhaps they should be glad it is just a cancellation?
G
Guest
Guest
Sure is getting a lot of play on FB. Check out Geico's page and read the comments.
The comments say that the 800# is telling people its a phony, but still no public statement by the company.
The comments say that the 800# is telling people its a phony, but still no public statement by the company.
- Thread starter
- #9
- 1,016
Agreed. But overall, I think the public has been fooled into thinking this is a personal auto policy, and that's the problem! I read a handful of articles about this by a simple google search and not one source mentioned anything about this being a commercial auto policy.
If I were Geico, I would be responding to this asap.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
That's very possible as well, which should give Geico even more incentive to respond to this quickly. I wouldn't be surprised if Warren Buffett is getting into Geico's ear right now about doing just that.
Only a fool would lie on an app, and then post about it publicly after being cancelled. But it's happened before. Ya never know!
Last edited:
Similar threads
