Complaint Review: GEICO - Washington District of Columbia

My wife, a GEICO auto policyholder was involved in a minor traffic accident in Sun City, Arizona on 11/10/98. It was an accident that at the time had no evidence or witnesses that gave any indication as to which driver was at fault. It should have been called no-fault.

GEICO's claim service was promptly called and we were promised that GEICO did not accept opinions of police in determining responsibility for the accident but instead did their own "thorough investigation" to determine fault.

Since that time, GEICO found my wife "100% responsible" for that accident exactly 30 days after the accident with absolutely no credible evidence and over these past 19-20 months have acted only with deceit, lies, avoidance, etc., etc. in response to my questions and my quest for the truth. I will explain the high spots:

1. GEICO's initial finding that my wife was responsible was based on two factors in their letter. The first (a)was her violation of Arizona law pertaining to intersections and the (b)second was the points of impact to the vehicles. The inadequacy of their basis is clearly obvious when the police report clearly stated that the accident "was not intersection related" and at her Hearing, the Hearing officer clearly stated that "It is not an intersection. Not even a junction!" As for GEICO's basis of "points of impact" it is important to note that at the time of their determination against my wife, GEICO had no pictures of the other vehicle, had not examined the other vehicle, and had been advised by the other driver's company that "no damage" was done to their vehicle. THEN: 42 days later, Mr. David Bronder of GEICO stated to me in writing that determinining the "actual points of impact at that time would not further their investigation"!

Since that time, in response to my perserverence in this matter, GEICO has indicated that they also have subsequently received a "witness statement" and that has been surrounded by sheer deceit and lies on their part. I will explain!!!

First, this is a witness that my wife and I found after she had been determined responsible by GEICO and who made various statements to my wife and I, face to face. Most were more advantageous to her position but one statement he made was damaging, but inconsistant. I called GEICO about this witness and explained in detail his complete statement to us including the damaging one. I requested Mr. Dave Fetchina of GEICO to call the witness and particularly requested that he question him closey on the damaging statement.

Approximately 2-3 days later, I called Mr. Fetchina and was advised that he just hung up from a very limited conversation with the witness and that he made a damaging statement against

my wife. When I asked him if he had questioned him closely on the damaging statement, he said, "No". I requested Mr. Fetchina to folllow up with this witness, he said he would, and never has.

Now, GEICO has stated to the AZ dept. of Insurance that they have a "witness statement" and THEY DO NOT per their own letters.

Per GEICO's eventual correspondence to me, this supposed witness made a comment to a Mr. Mike Williams, our initial claims agent, who just fortunately for GEICO is no longer in their emploment. This is a lie because Mr. Fetchina told me personally that HE spoke with the witness.

Mr. Bronder of GEICO also has informed me in writing that this witness has "refused to give GEICO a written or recorded" statement. Mr. Bronder further indicates that no significant notes have been retained by GEICO as to their conversation with that witness. And finally, I will state that that witness has changed his statements three different times and at least one year ago still did business with the driver of the other vehicle.

This witness nor GEICO has any credibility in this matter.

Now I will state some things that will appear damaging to my wife's position but please understand that I can back up everything I am about to say as regards the police, the Az Courts, and the Az Dept. of Insurance. I have the documentation. I will also state that I welcome any rebuttal to anything stated. However, anyone disagreeing should be willing to debate any part of this incident with specifics, not in generalities.

My wife was found responsible for this accident by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Dept. only by the "contrivance" of the two officers involved. As stated, there was no evidence at the time of the accident and to date, there is no credible evidence against my wife. There is much more but I will state for now that in their investigation of this accident, the police investgators violated Arizona Law at least four times and I believe possibly my wife's rights under the Arizona and US constitutions. (1) These officers violated ARS 28-669 by not including in the police report one word as to the cause of the accident, (2) misrepresented and/or omitted statements and conditions relating to that accident that were pertinent, (3) Failed to give the other driver a citation for lack of current financial responsibility information as required, (4) solicited after the fact, the financial responsibility information, a responsibility under Arizona law given only to court officers.

Two and one half months after the accident, my wife attended her hearing without any knowledge of specifically what she had supposedly done wrong. The only thing that was stated to her by police, THREE WEEKS AFTER THE ACCIDENT was the specific charge. I believe that both the US and Arizona Constitutions guarantee that she be entitled to know "the nature and cause of the accusation against her".

As for the Hearing Officer at court, he exibited obvious bias and at every opportunity short circuited and limited my wife's defense. I can detail and document this to anyone desiring me to prove that statement but I will give only one significant example.

That Hearing officer denied my wife's defense the opportunity to discuss "speed" of the vehicles" because "speed" was not a factor for the charge against her. Then at the end of the hearing, he found her guilty on the basis of the "position" of her vehicle in the road and then indicates that it also was not a factor for the charge against her. He can use against her any factors of his choosing while he limits her defense that same prerogative.

This matter becomes even more unfair when one considers that the "position" of her vehicle was not a factor or evidence introduced by her accusers. It was a factor however, that she fully explained in her opening statement but either the Hearing Officer didn't hear it or he DIDN'T WANT to hear it. My wife was defending herself against her accusers and the hearing officer, who should be the arbitrator.

I have offered GEICO $1,000 if they will submit to me one iota of credible evidence that points to my wife's guilt or responsibility for this accident and they cannot respond because there is none. GEICO, exactly 30 days after the accident, made a determination that this accident was too insignificant for them to do a "thorough investigation" so they, in my opinion, conspired with the other driver's company to make my wife the sacrificial lamb and closed our claim in order to cut the cost of their investigation. The one thing that GEICO planned but did not happen was that "I did not roll over and play dead"!

My wife is entirely innocent in this accident and not one individual in these past 19-20 months has had the integrity and/or courage to look at all the facts that will prove that.

I encourage anyone who takes exception to any part of this writing to question me at my EMail address: [email protected].

I guarantee a response.

Finally, I will relate one other aspect of this matter that I believe clearly demonstrates the negligent and biased attitude that GEICO has maintained. The other vehicle was a Pinkerton Security Service vehicle which was driven on and off a major hospital's (Boswell in Sun City, Az)campus conducting security

and probably other duties. The driver of that vehicle refused to give GEICO any formal statement until 4/1/99, over four and one half months after the accident and according to Mr. Bronder of GEICO, Pinkerton Security Services personnel advised him that this was due to the fact that she could not "speak english"!

GEICO believes this and like they used to say, "Anyone have a bridge that they would like to sell? I can give you the number of GEICO CEO, Tony Nicely. He just may be interested.

My personal experience indicates that GEICO stands for:

Guaranteed (*)Expedient Insurance Claims Operation

(*) CONCERN FOR WHAT IS ADVANTAGEOUS WITHOUT

REGARD FOR FAIRNESS OR RIGHTNESS

=========================

UPDATE ON: GEICO - Story # 2910, 8/12/2000

On 8/18/00 I received a letter from GEICO Legal Department Counsel, Dana Albertini in response to my request to GEICO's SEAL Team for assistance. The SEAL Team is advertised by GEICO as "committed to providing military personnel with the "best possible" and "unbeatable"

insurance service in addition to them being an "Advocate" for the military.

After over three months of communicating with this SEAL Team, I have not received one piece of correspondence from them, they have not acknowledged or denied the obvious and proven gross negligence of GEICO that I had protested to them, and only this past Friday did I finally receive from GEICO's Legal Department a response to my charges against GEICO. This SEAL Team, after receiving many letters from me documenting and detailing the negligence and deceit of GEICO has not done one thing except to refer me back to GEICO. This is not being an "Advocate" or

showing any concern for the "worst possible" service that I have

received.

The manner in which my situation has been handled by GEICO's SEAL Team clearly indicates that it is only one more piece of "whitewash and brainwash" by GEICO to lull military and ex-military members into a "false sense of security" with promises of "unbeatable service" that GEICO has no intention to provide. It is also clear that this Team has not been allowed the "independence" that is so necessary if they in fact are intended to be allowed to be an "Advocate" for military personnel as advertised. This is a matter which as time permits, I intend to formally complain to the Arizona Attorney General for "Fraudulent Advertising." It is one more rip-off on the part of GEICO!

Now I will address GEICO's letter dated August 15, 2000 which

generally, not specifically addresses only a part of my complaints to them. It is a letter that although indicating that the writer, Counsel Dana Albertini would actually provide specifics, really does not and I will explain.

First, Ms. Albertini states, "It is my determination that the claim was handled properly and in full accordance with the laws of the State of Arizona" and I will strenuously disagree. By no stretch of the imagination has GEICO acted in good faith with my wife and I as policyholders.

(1) GEICO has totally ignored our request to them for information prior to my wife's hearing. Information that would have been beneficial to her defense.

(2) Charged my wife on 12/9/98 for 100% responsibility for this accident without adequate information, completely

ignored information on the police report that clearly negated their rimary basis, and intentionally implied in their letter that they were in possession of information that they knew they did not have.

(3)Misrepresented to the Arizona Dept. of insurance that they had a witness statement, when in fact they had only "a comment" by an individual who has refused to back up that "comment" with any formal statement to GEICO. A supposed witness, who could never pass a credibility test and GEICO has the documentation to support that fact.

(4) Misrepresented a fact to the AZ Dept. of Insurance when they stated in writing that they had a "statement of claim" from the other driver when they had only a claim and intentionally ignored evidence in their possession that clearly proved that that driver had been avoiding giving them a statement.

(5)Deceitfully and intentionally misused the information from a key witness by looking at and only considering one comment from that individual that was beneficial to GEICO to support their charge against my wife while intentionally ignoring other information from that witness that added credibility to my wife and showed the deception of the investigating officers of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Dept..

(6)Lied, in writing to us their policyholders as to who interviewed that witness and for over a year has refused to respond to or deny my charge of that lie. (THERE ARE MORE INSTANCES).

Also, Ms Albertini states, "We have been receptive throughout the entire claim process to consider any substantive proof in support of your assertions that your wife was not liable and we have repeatedly asked you to provide said proof. You have been provided ample time to substantiate your claim, yet we have received nothing from you that factually supports your conclusion."

RESPONSE: Ms Albertini (1) carefully and conveniently ignores the eight pages of documentation that was sent to GEICO on 2/8/99 that clearly destroys any possibility of credibility for their witness (that we provided and they misused). Credibility that should not have been extended to that witness even without that documentation since he refused to formally acknowledge his accusation against my wife.

(2) Ignores documentation provided by myself that proves the contrivance of police and the bias of Peoria Justice Court Hearing Officer, Glen Hutchinson.

(3)Ignores my charge of GEICO lying and misrepresentation. (4)

Ignores evidence provided to GEICO that totally refutes the entire basis of their charge against my wife.

This statement by Ms. Albertini is just one example of how GEICO

consistently avoids facing facts and that is to try to put the blame back on the consumer. They have done it a number of times in this matter. It is a ploy that works with entities such as the Arizona Department of Insurance who do not have the courage to battle a company the size of GEICO. Mr. Kidd, of the GEICO SEAL Team recently stated to me that he could not believe the size of our claims file.

Additionally, this statement by Ms. Albertini reeks of hypocrisy. I have offered GEICO $1,000.00 if they can provide me in writing, one iota of credible evidence against my wife for this accident and Ms Albertini refuses to provide that information. Every iota of basis for their charge against my wife has been refuted and Ms. Albertini has clearly indicated that GEICO "has not" used the conclusions of the court as a basis against my wife, so what do they have as evidence or basis? Absolutely nothing!!!

Now, Ms. Abertini, is advising me that we have not sent any

"substantive proof" of Sandra's innocence and this makes me wonder exactly what form of government her and GEICO adhere to!!! I have been raised as an American and I spent twenty plus years in the military service of this country partly to preserve a concept that has been adopted by every American and that is,

AS AMERICANS, WE ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY

Ms. Albertini endorses GEICO's charge against my wife but refuses to state any "substantive proof or basis" to support that charge. Instead, according to Ms. Albertini and GEICO, "my wife is guilty until she proves her innocence". GEICO policyholders can be held responsible by GEICO without basis and must prove their innocence. This situation is

un-American and is worsened by the fact that GEICO intentionally ignores evidence that is sent to them.

So that the record is clear to everyone, ever since this accident has occurred, GEICO and every party to it have been begged in writing to sit and discuss the total facts of the matter and that plea has been ignored by everyone concerned from the police officers who contrived and conspired against my wife to Governor Hull. GEICO has remained as far distant from the truth as possible because they know that they do not have a leg to stand on in their charge against my wife and the indifference and ignorance that they have subjected me to since 11/10/98.

GEICO knows the truth but contemptuously avoids facing it.

Next, Ms. Albertini states, "I am aware that you have refuted much of the evidence that was used a a basis for the liability determination".

RESPONSE: I have refuted the totality of the basis of GEICO's

letter of determination dated 12/9/98 and the only other "supposed" evidence that GEICO has indicated to us is the "witness statement" that by no stretch of the imagination could ever pass a test of credibility.

The other driver stated to police per two separate supplemental

police reports that my wife did not stop at her stop sign. However, these same police testified at my wife's hearing that they believe both drivers stopped and GEICO's "supposed witness" has verified that my wife stopped prior to the golf cart. This is the same driver who avoided giving a statement to GEICO for over four and one half months because she could not speak English. The same driver who had no problem at the accident scene in explaining to my wife how to work her radio, discussed

her physical condition to a nurse, and performed security duties that demanded her ability to speak english for Pinkerton Security Service. There is absolutely no credibility here.

Now we come to the evidence presented at court and very simply

stated, there was none. There was a great deal of bias and ignorance of the law by the Hearing Officer, Glen Hutchinson, but no evidence!

Ms. Albertini states in her letter that, "we did review the

transcript and conviction that was provided to us and the fact is that the results supported our conclusion". Ms. Albertini states that the "results" of my wife's hearing supported GEICO's conclusion but cites no evidence that was presented at that hearing. Police at that hearing presented "only" statements that they clearly indicated to be assumption, supposition, and as one stated "It's useful to believe"(A statement that should qualify him for the GEICO claims Dept.). Has GEICO considered

this???

Next, we take a look at Arizona Law(ARS 28-1596) which states that "The state is required to prove the violation charged by a preponderance of the evidence" and in his closing statement, Hearing Officer Glen Hutchinson stated, "I'm going to find you responsible Miss Updike. Just the position for your vehicle, while this isn't failure to yield from a private drive." That hearing officer determines my wife to be responsible for this accident on a basis that he acknowledges "not to be the charge against her" in clear violation of ARS 28-1596.

Additionally, it is important to note that my wife explained the position of her vehicle in her opening statement and the police did not use "position" in their finding of cause for the accident in the hearing.

This is compounded further by Glen Hutchinson earlier in the hearing denying my wife's defense the opportunity to address "speed" of the vehicles because speed was not a factor in the charge against her. He allowed himself the privilege of using any factor (position of vehicle) available to him while he intentionally denied my wife the same right.

Glen Hutchinson also denied my wife's defense the opportunity to

question police on their findings upon inspection of the damage to the other vehicle and he disallowed that defense because "he did not want them to make a conclusion based on insufficient facts." He denied my wife testimony that could have been more material and substantive than any other presented by police.

He disallowed the testimony of our private investigator as to his communications with the driver of the third vehicle at the scene and completely ignored my wife's discussion of that vehicle and witness in her opening statement. The vehicle which my wife advised the police of at the accident scene and who they conveniently refused to admit to knowing about in order to make their contrived police report fit the manufactured charge against my wife. The vehicle that my wife advised

GEICO of in her claim to them on the evening of the accident.

NOTE: The above denials by Hearing Officer Glen Hutchinson also

violate ARS 28-1596 which states "Technical rules of evidence do not apply, except for statutory provisions relating to privileged communications."

I would certainly agree with Ms. Albertini that beyond the explicit writing of the law, judges and hearing officers may have some latitude. However, Ms Albertini and any other individual concerned with the condition of our justice system cannot avoid recognizing in this hearing the total lack of fairness and due process allowed to my wife. At that Hearing, my wife faced not only the police as her accusers but also Hearing Officer Glen Hutchinson and the tape and transcript will support

that accusation.

Hearing Officer, Glen Hutchinson knew upon entering that hearing

room that he would be finding my wife "guilty"! I challenge Ms. Albertini, GEICO and the rest of their legal staff to find the "preponderance of the credible evidence" presented at court

and produce the credible basis that they have for GEICO's against my wife.

In closing, I would like to recap to existing GEICO policyholders and prospective GEICO policyholders what kind of claims service my wife and I have received from GEICO in this accident situation and it should serve as a warning to those individuals. Based on my experience, GEICO cannot be trusted!!!

"GEICO charged my wife for 100% responsibility for this accident on a basis that was contrived by them as quickly as possible and I believe in collusion with Pinkerton Security Services, the other party to the accident. GEICO relied partly on a police report that has been proven to be contrived and also relied on me accepting this deceit. Since that time, GEICO has intentionally ignored every piece of evidence in my wife's favor and extracted and intentionally misused every piece of

evidence possible against her. GEICO has consistently refused to look at anything that resembles the truth, GEICO treats their policyholders in this manner because they know and rely on the fact that middle and lower class Americans cannot afford

to fight them in the courts and watchdogs such as the Arizona Dept. of Insurance merely give us lip service. So they can and do intentionally kick us around as they have with us in this accident situation. We need to find a way to turn this thing around or the greed and indifference of companies like GEICO will destroy everything we have believed in.

Once again, I challenge GEICO. Prove me wrong and I will pay you

$1,000 and apologize in any manner you desire, within reason. I have made my accusations and statements and I will not hide behind court conclusions based on bias or contrived police reports. As I have done since 11/10/98, I am the first in line with the facts and the truth. I don't just believe that GEICO was negligent and deceitful in this matter! I can prove it!!!

Anyone who wishes to challenge me on what I have stated may call me at (623) 933-3689 but they should be prepared to visit me and spend approximately 3-5 hours to go over the entire matter. I will hide from no one but discussing only a few of the facts is not appropriate. Any individual taking me up on this will depart that meeting with the belief of all that I have stated herein and with the belief that the Pinkerton Security Services driver caused this accident.

"Although my problem with GEICO has not been one of money, it has reached that point and I most certainly am interested in going after them for monies to cover the damage to our car, our health, and our lives. I am also interested in extending this quest for monies from Pinkerton Security Service and Sun Health Corporation of Sun City, Arizona both of whom have acted irresponsibly in the matter of my wife's accident.

The irresponsible action of those entities in this matter will be included in my next update within the next two days."

NOTE: I cannot state as indicated in the instructions that "I want my money back" since it is not that type of situation and as much as I appreciate you allowing me this opportunity to air this problem, in view of the "bad faith" that I have been subjected to over the past two year, it is difficult to put any monies up front.

The only thing I can say is that should we be able to collect any significant monies from these entities, we would be most generous as to the percentage given to your organization or anyone else that would represent our interests.

GEICO has proven their "bad faith" all by themselves. It is a matter of record. As for the other entities, their actions and/or inaction clearly show their bias and/or avoidance of responsible conduct. That will be explained very shortly.

..........UPDATE 8-28-00

Subject: RE: Story #2910 - GEICO filed 08-12-00

Sent: 8/28/00 2:15 PM

2ND UPDATE ON: GEICO - Story # 2910, 8/12/2000 AS UPDATED ON 8/25/00

As regards my wife's accident of 11/10/98 this update will address

(1) The negligent, inefficient, and biased actions of the Arizona Department of Insurance

(2) The irresponsible actions of Pinkerton Security Service, the other party to that accident and (3) The irresponsible actions of Sun Health Corporation of Sun City, Arizona in

their efforts to intimidate me through their employee, my wife in order to stop my search for the truth in the matter of that accident.

(1)My first complaint to the Arizona Department of Insurance was

against GEICO for not conducting a proper, adequate, and thorough investigation and finding my wife 100% responsible without any evidence.

The Az Dept. of Insurance disagreed with me and endorsed GEICO's

actions accepting as a "thorough investigation" GEICO's:

a. Having a witness "comment" from a witness who refused to give a formal statement.

b. Having only a claim from the other driver without any statement from

that driver.

c. A police report that they knew was rife with obvious error

including a totally incorrect diagram of the scene of the accident.

d. Scene photos that gave no evidence other than depicting the two driveways.

e. Photos of each vehicle with full knowledge that photos of the

Pinkerton Security vehicle were not in GEICO's possession at the time of the charge against my wife.

f. A statement from my wife that today stands as the only evidence that has stood the test of credibility and time.

g. Not having determined the actual points of impact to the vehicles at the time of the accident.

NOTES: (1) Prior to the Az Dept. of Insurance advising me in writing of their support for GEICO in this matter, Mr. John McCormick, their investigator informed me by phone on 2/24/99 that he spent approximately three days investigating the information and evidence of this accident and his conclusion was that "the Pinkerton Security Service driver caused this accident" by driving into the roadway without stopping. He stated further however, that that was his personal conclusion and he could not use it against GEICO.

(2) This Department of the State of Arizona completely ignored any question of credibility of information, evidence, or witnesses and accepted GEICO's response to my complaint, without question or any scrutiny. They ignored every effort of mine to get them to look at the credibility or substantiality of GEICO's statements to them. It was clearly a "whitewash" job by ADOI.

(2) My second complaint to Az Dept. of Insurance was sent on March 23, 1999 and requested that they assist me in getting information from Pinkerton Security Services insurance company, the National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh. Per a supplemental police report of 11/29/98, Pinkerton Security Service identified that company as being the insurer of their vehicle at the time of the accident and identified their

policy number.

Upon receipt of this police report, I called that company and was advised Helen Rennert that the policy information given to the police by Pinkerton was incorrect and that she would call me with the correct policy number. She called, gave me another policy number and when I asked her to confirm it in writing, she stated that she would have to speak to Nat'l Union's "legal department" first. That is the last communication that I have ever been able to solicit from them.

The Arizona Department of Insurance eventually informed me that

Pinkerton was self-insured and stated that they would get that confirmed for me in writing but subsequently refused to get me that information.

SUMMARY & CONCLUSION: (A) Pinkerton Security Service was in

violation of the law at the time of the accident per the police report for not having current financial responsibility information on their vehicle involved in the accident. (B) Pinkerton Security Service gave the police incorrect information for their report of 11/29/98 (C) The National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh refuses to confirm that the Pinkerton Security vehicle was insured at the time of the

accident. (D) Pinkerton eventually states to the Az Department of Insurance that their vehicle was self-insured, refuses to put that in writing, and it is confirmed to me by phone by the Az Department of transportation that "without a doubt", that vehicle was not self-insured.

The bottom line is that the Pinkerton Security Vehicle involved in the accident with my wife's vehicle "was very likely not insured" and the Az Dept. of Insurance once again treated this matter with inefficiency and negligence in the interests of the big company, Pinkerton!

Next, we deal with the other party to this accident, Pinkerton

Security Services, who performed security responsibilities for Boswell Hospital, Sun Health corporation.

Pinkerton Security Service has (1) denied my wife and I the right to file a claim against them (2) violated Arizona law by not having current Financial Responsibility information on their vehicle (3) Given the police incorrect information as to their insurance coverage on their vehicle (4) Advised the Az Dept. of Insurance that their vehicle was self-insured while the Az Dept. of Transportation confirms that it was not self-insured (5) Misrepresented a conversation between their claims person, Roger Long and myself to the Az Dept. of Insurance (6) Has lied

to Az Dept. of Insurance about having a statement from my wife when they have never allowed her to give them a statement.

Pinkerton Security Service has since the time of the accident acted irresponsibly by consistently ignoring correspondence from us, consistently giving contradictory information about the insurance coverage of their vehicle, assisting the driver of their vehicle in avoiding giving a statement as to the accident(Mr. Williams), and possibly (*) colluded with police and GEICO against my wife.

(*) (a) There is evidence that someone from Pinkerton spoke with police the evening of the accident and the next morning I was advised by Deputy Christopher Osborn that he and his training officer, Thomas Burke were trying to figure out how to complete the police report! A police report that was so rife with error and omission that it could not stand any test

of credibility, especially since it was in clear violation of Az Law. Deputy Osborn stated to me that "He knew exactly what happened" but in violation of Az law failed to put one word as to "cause" in his report. He should have and could have asked the assistance of Pinkerton!

(*) (b) Additionally, it can be evidenced that "the day after"

Pinkerton claims office received our first request for a claim form, GEICO issued their "contrived" charge of 100% responsibility against my wife and according to the Az Dept. of Insurance that action by GEICO gave Pinkerton the right to deny us filing a claim against them. How convenient for Pinkerton!!!

Pinkerton's conduct in this matter from CEO, Denis Brown to the

driver of their vehicle, plainly stated has been totally irresponsible with the obvious intent to avoid the truth at all costs.

Now we get to the final party to this matter and that is Sun Health Corporation of Sun City, Arizona which became involved first only by circumstance, then my request for their assistance, and then finally by their "totally improper and inappropriate" action against my wife and myself.

All parties to this accident were connected to Sun Health

Corporation merely by circumstance. (1) My wife is employed by Sun Health in their temporary administrative pool. (2) Pinkerton Security Service was providing security service to Sun Health probably by contract with their vehicle that I now know caused this accident (3) The pharmacist witness, D. R. conducted his business in a building on Boswell Hospital Campus(Sun Health Corp) and did business on a daily basis with

Pinkerton Security Service personnel, probably including the Pinkerton driver involved in this accident ( 4) The actual driver of the Pinkerton vehicle (5) A witness K. V. who worked for Sun Health Corp..

Next we look at the general conduct of these four people and/or

entities in regard to this accident, since that accident:

(1) My wife made a statement to GEICO and the police on 11/10/98 that has not been challenged to this date. As a matter of fact, no one has tried to challenge one iota of my wife's statements and the assumptions that we had to make on the date of the accident have only "been verified" by subsequent facts that came to the surface. The credibility of my wife

and I have never been disputed, challenged, or proven to be lacking in any sense.

Now we look at the credibility of the rest!!!

(2) Pinkerton Security Service has acted totally irresponsible, has not made one effort to find the truth, and may have conspired with the police and GEICO against my wife. There is zero credibility here!

(3) The witness, D. R. who my wife and I found actually saw the accident and since that time has changed his story every time he told it. Per GEICO, he stated to them that my wife was responsible for this accident but then refused to give them a complete or formal statement! WHY? There is zero credibility here!

(4) The Pinkerton driver who performed security duties on and off the hospital campus. Duties which required visits to many areas and evidently communication with many people. However, according to her and Pinkerton, she could not speak English. Something that she had no trouble doing at the accident scene while directing my wife to call her office on her phone or explaining her condition to the nurse witness, K.V.!

This driver was able to submit a claim for bodily harm to GEICO

at least by mid February 1999 but could not find the time to give GEICO even a telephone interview until 4/1/99, over four and one half months after the accident.

This is the driver that stated to police twice that my wife did

not stop at her stop sign and the police indicated at the hearing that they did not believe her. There is zero credibility here.

(5) Nurse witness, K.V. who saw some aspects of the accident but who has consistently refused to respond to GEICO's request for a statement and four very tactful efforts by myself and our private investigator to solicit some kind of a statement from her, indicating that we only wanted the "truth". This witness certainly has ZERO credibility!

IS IT MERE COINCIDENCE THAT ALL OF THESE PEOPLE UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF SUN HEALTH CORPORATION, ALL HIDE FROM THE TRUTH AND NOT ONE IS STRAIGHT FORWARD AND OPEN???

I solicited the help of Sun Health Corporation CEO Leland Peterson in getting Pinkerton to act more responsibly in this matter and also requested that I be allowed to file a claim against Sun Health Corp.. Mr. Perterson indicated that I could file such a claim but gave no evidence that he had tried to get Pinkerton to act responsibly. However, when Sun Health and Pinkerton representatives appeared at my wife's hearing together, I felt insecure about filing that claim with Sun

Health.

Sun Health Corporation then last October joined forces against my wife and their employee by a totally inappropriate and improper action which clearly was intended to intimidate my wife and thereby pressure me to stop my search for the truth about the accident.

My last tactful, polite, and sincere request to Nurse witness K.V. was mailed to her home early last October and we received no reply from her. Then my wife was contacted by phone by Sun Health Corp. Human Resources representative, Marie Stehmer who advised my wife that they were to meet for a discussion on the accident but would not be specific as to what aspect. I had my wife request permission to tape that meeting or to have me attend as a "silent" witness and both requests were denied by Ms Stehmer.

I then had my wife send a letter to Ms Stehmer clearly indicating that if this meeting had anything to do with our request to Nurse K.V. that our approach to her was "Tactful and respectful" and in no way could be construed to be harassment.

As instructed, my wife met with Marie Stehmer of Sun Health Corp. Human Resources and among other things was advised, (1) The Nurse K.V. had complained to Human Resources about being harassed by me (2) That Ms Stehmer agreed to that charge against me (3) That my wife should advise me that if I wanted to speak with the nurse, that I should see an attorney (4) That the Nurse K.V. stated that she was in an uncomfortable position and did not want to be there (5) That she, Ms Stehmer of Sun

Health Human Resources, "Knew too much already and that she did not want to know anymore!"

My wife and I have tactfully and respectfully questioned the

audacity of Sun Health Corporation in their meddling into my business and more importantly the intimidating of my wife. Sun Health Corporation has elected to completely ignore all such correspondence to CEO Leland Peterson, Human Resources Director Judy Fahey, and Marie Stehmer.

First, we have the contrivance of police, the ignorance and

avoidance of Pinkerton Security Service, the obvious and intentional bias of the courts, Etc.. And then Sun Health Corporation tries to further crucify my wife and their employee when I am certain they know she is innocent and/or not responsible for this accident.

Mr. Leland Peterson has intentionally allowed a cancer to grow in his area of responsibility. Would Mr. Peterson care to "stand up like a man" and admit exactly what his Human Resource person, Marie Stehmer really knows. Would he care to explain why Sun Health Corporation acts in a legal capacity for their nurse employee to advise me?. An employee who is in a very "uncomfortable position"??? What exactly is she so

uncomfortable about, Mr Peterson? All we want is the truth! Would Mr. Petetrson care to explain why no one that is connected to this accident at Sun Health has any integrity or credibility and that includes himself and Human Resource Director Judy Fahey?

The answer to all of these questions is clear and obvious. No, he does not because when he does he will do the same thing that GEICO has done for over the past year and a half and that is "put his foot in his mouth" instead of where it belongs.

My personal message to Mr. Peterson is, "Be a man and quit hiding behind your ignorance and your position. Don't go after my wife. Pick on somebody your own size, like me! You may take me down with all of your money, position, and of course your gang of lawyers. But one thing you can count on and that is that I will give you one "hellova fight" as long as they don't tie my hands behind my back and kick me like they have done to my wife since 11/10/98.

One final comment to any readers and especially the management of the Rip-Off-Report. I guarantee you that I have not kept one iota of evidence, fact, or information from my complaint for self-serving reasons. There is no evidence against my wife in this accident and everything that I have omitted from this article will still go in her favor and against those that have conspired against her.

........UPDATE 8-24-00...................

UPDATE ON: GEICO - Story # 2910, 8/12/2000

On 8/18/00 I received a letter from GEICO Legal Department Counsel, Dana Albertini in response to my request to GEICO's SEAL Team for assistance. The SEAL Team is advertised by GEICO as "committed to providing military personnel with the "best possible" and "unbeatable"

insurance service in addition to them being an "Advocate" for the military.

After over three months of communicating with this SEAL Team, I have not received one piece of correspondence from them, they have not acknowledged or denied the obvious and proven gross negligence of GEICO that I had protested to them, and only this past Friday did I finally receive from GEICO's Legal Department a response to my charges against GEICO. This SEAL Team, after receiving many letters from me documenting and detailing the negligence and deceit of GEICO has not done one thing except to refer me back to GEICO. This is not being an "Advocate" or

showing any concern for the "worst possible" service that I have

received.

The manner in which my situation has been handled by GEICO's SEAL Team clearly indicates that it is only one more piece of "whitewash and brainwash" by GEICO to lull military and ex-military members into a "false sense of security" with promises of "unbeatable service" that GEICO has no intention to provide. It is also clear that this Team has not been allowed the "independence" that is so necessary if they in fact are intended to be allowed to be an "Advocate" for military personnel as advertised. This is a matter which as time permits, I intend to formally complain to the Arizona Attorney General for "Fraudulent Advertising." It is one more rip-off on the part of GEICO!

Now I will address GEICO's letter dated August 15, 2000 which

generally, not specifically addresses only a part of my complaints to them. It is a letter that although indicating that the writer, Counsel Dana Albertini would actually provide specifics, really does not and I will explain.

First, Ms. Albertini states, "It is my determination that the claim was handled properly and in full accordance with the laws of the State of Arizona" and I will strenuously disagree. By no stretch of the imagination has GEICO acted in good faith with my wife and I as policyholders.

(1) GEICO has totally ignored our request to them for information prior to my wife's hearing. Information that would have been beneficial to her defense.

(2) Charged my wife on 12/9/98 for 100% responsibility for this accident without adequate information, completely

ignored information on the police report that clearly negated their rimary basis, and intentionally implied in their letter that they were in possession of information that they knew they did not have.

(3)Misrepresented to the Arizona Dept. of insurance that they had a witness statement, when in fact they had only "a comment" by an individual who has refused to back up that "comment" with any formal statement to GEICO. A supposed witness, who could never pass a credibility test and GEICO has the documentation to support that fact.

(4) Misrepresented a fact to the AZ Dept. of Insurance when they stated in writing that they had a "statement of claim" from the other driver when they had only a claim and intentionally ignored evidence in their possession that clearly proved that that driver had been avoiding giving them a statement.

(5)Deceitfully and intentionally misused the information from a key witness by looking at and only considering one comment from that individual that was beneficial to GEICO to support their charge against my wife while intentionally ignoring other information from that witness that added credibility to my wife and showed the deception of the investigating officers of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Dept..

(6)Lied, in writing to us their policyholders as to who interviewed that witness and for over a year has refused to respond to or deny my charge of that lie. (THERE ARE MORE INSTANCES).

Also, Ms Albertini states, "We have been receptive throughout the entire claim process to consider any substantive proof in support of your assertions that your wife was not liable and we have repeatedly asked you to provide said proof. You have been provided ample time to substantiate your claim, yet we have received nothing from you that factually supports your conclusion."

RESPONSE: Ms Albertini (1) carefully and conveniently ignores the eight pages of documentation that was sent to GEICO on 2/8/99 that clearly destroys any possibility of credibility for their witness (that we provided and they misused). Credibility that should not have been extended to that witness even without that documentation since he refused to formally acknowledge his accusation against my wife.

(2) Ignores documentation provided by myself that proves the contrivance of police and the bias of Peoria Justice Court Hearing Officer, Glen Hutchinson.

(3)Ignores my charge of GEICO lying and misrepresentation. (4)

Ignores evidence provided to GEICO that totally refutes the entire basis of their charge against my wife.

This statement by Ms. Albertini is just one example of how GEICO

consistently avoids facing facts and that is to try to put the blame back on the consumer. They have done it a number of times in this matter. It is a ploy that works with entities such as the Arizona Department of Insurance who do not have the courage to battle a company the size of GEICO. Mr. Kidd, of the GEICO SEAL Team recently stated to me that he could not believe the size of our claims file.

Additionally, this statement by Ms. Albertini reeks of hypocrisy. I have offered GEICO $1,000.00 if they can provide me in writing, one iota of credible evidence against my wife for this accident and Ms Albertini refuses to provide that information. Every iota of basis for their charge against my wife has been refuted and Ms. Albertini has clearly indicated that GEICO "has not" used the conclusions of the court as a basis against my wife, so what do they have as evidence or basis? Absolutely nothing!!!

Now, Ms. Abertini, is advising me that we have not sent any

"substantive proof" of Sandra's innocence and this makes me wonder exactly what form of government her and GEICO adhere to!!! I have been raised as an American and I spent twenty plus years in the military service of this country partly to preserve a concept that has been adopted by every American and that is,

AS AMERICANS, WE ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY

Ms. Albertini endorses GEICO's charge against my wife but refuses to state any "substantive proof or basis" to support that charge. Instead, according to Ms. Albertini and GEICO, "my wife is guilty until she proves her innocence". GEICO policyholders can be held responsible by GEICO without basis and must prove their innocence. This situation is

un-American and is worsened by the fact that GEICO intentionally ignores evidence that is sent to them.

So that the record is clear to everyone, ever since this accident has occurred, GEICO and every party to it have been begged in writing to sit and discuss the total facts of the matter and that plea has been ignored by everyone concerned from the police officers who contrived and conspired against my wife to Governor Hull. GEICO has remained as far distant from the truth as possible because they know that they do not have a leg to stand on in their charge against my wife and the indifference and ignorance that they have subjected me to since 11/10/98.

GEICO knows the truth but contemptuously avoids facing it.

Next, Ms. Albertini states, "I am aware that you have refuted much of the evidence that was used a a basis for the liability determination".

RESPONSE: I have refuted the totality of the basis of GEICO's

letter of determination dated 12/9/98 and the only other "supposed" evidence that GEICO has indicated to us is the "witness statement" that by no stretch of the imagination could ever pass a test of credibility.

The other driver stated to police per two separate supplemental

police reports that my wife did not stop at her stop sign. However, these same police testified at my wife's hearing that they believe both drivers stopped and GEICO's "supposed witness" has verified that my wife stopped prior to the golf cart. This is the same driver who avoided giving a statement to GEICO for over four and one half months because she could not speak English. The same driver who had no problem at the accident scene in explaining to my wife how to work her radio, discussed

her physical condition to a nurse, and performed security duties that demanded her ability to speak english for Pinkerton Security Service. There is absolutely no credibility here.

Now we come to the evidence presented at court and very simply

stated, there was none. There was a great deal of bias and ignorance of the law by the Hearing Officer, Glen Hutchinson, but no evidence!

Ms. Albertini states in her letter that, "we did review the

transcript and conviction that was provided to us and the fact is that the results supported our conclusion". Ms. Albertini states that the "results" of my wife's hearing supported GEICO's conclusion but cites no evidence that was presented at that hearing. Police at that hearing presented "only" statements that they clearly indicated to be assumption, supposition, and as one stated "It's useful to believe"(A statement that should qualify him for the GEICO claims Dept.). Has GEICO considered

this???

Next, we take a look at Arizona Law(ARS 28-1596) which states that "The state is required to prove the violation charged by a preponderance of the evidence" and in his closing statement, Hearing Officer Glen Hutchinson stated, "I'm going to find you responsible Miss Updike. Just the position for your vehicle, while this isn't failure to yield from a private drive." That hearing officer determines my wife to be responsible for this accident on a basis that he acknowledges "not to be the charge against her" in clear violation of ARS 28-1596.

Additionally, it is important to note that my wife explained the position of her vehicle in her opening statement and the police did not use "position" in their finding of cause for the accident in the hearing.

This is compounded further by Glen Hutchinson earlier in the hearing denying my wife's defense the opportunity to address "speed" of the vehicles because speed was not a factor in the charge against her. He allowed himself the privilege of using any factor (position of vehicle) available to him while he intentionally denied my wife the same right.

Glen Hutchinson also denied my wife's defense the opportunity to

question police on their findings upon inspection of the damage to the other vehicle and he disallowed that defense because "he did not want them to make a conclusion based on insufficient facts." He denied my wife testimony that could have been more material and substantive than any other presented by police.

He disallowed the testimony of our private investigator as to his communications with the driver of the third vehicle at the scene and completely ignored my wife's discussion of that vehicle and witness in her opening statement. The vehicle which my wife advised the police of at the accident scene and who they conveniently refused to admit to knowing about in order to make their contrived police report fit the manufactured charge against my wife. The vehicle that my wife advised

GEICO of in her claim to them on the evening of the accident.

NOTE: The above denials by Hearing Officer Glen Hutchinson also

violate ARS 28-1596 which states "Technical rules of evidence do not apply, except for statutory provisions relating to privileged communications."

I would certainly agree with Ms. Albertini that beyond the explicit writing of the law, judges and hearing officers may have some latitude. However, Ms Albertini and any other individual concerned with the condition of our justice system cannot avoid recognizing in this hearing the total lack of fairness and due process allowed to my wife. At that Hearing, my wife faced not only the police as her accusers but also Hearing Officer Glen Hutchinson and the tape and transcript will support

that accusation.

Hearing Officer, Glen Hutchinson knew upon entering that hearing

room that he would be finding my wife "guilty"! I challenge Ms. Albertini, GEICO and the rest of their legal staff to find the "preponderance of the credible evidence" presented at court

and produce the credible basis that they have for GEICO's against my wife.

In closing, I would like to recap to existing GEICO policyholders and prospective GEICO policyholders what kind of claims service my wife and I have received from GEICO in this accident situation and it should serve as a warning to those individuals. Based on my experience, GEICO cannot be trusted!!!

"GEICO charged my wife for 100% responsibility for this accident on a basis that was contrived by them as quickly as possible and I believe in collusion with Pinkerton Security Services, the other party to the accident. GEICO relied partly on a police report that has been proven to be contrived and also relied on me accepting this deceit. Since that time, GEICO has intentionally ignored every piece of evidence in my wife's favor and extracted and intentionally misused every piece of

evidence possible against her. GEICO has consistently refused to look at anything that resembles the truth, GEICO treats their policyholders in this manner because they know and rely on the fact that middle and lower class Americans cannot afford

to fight them in the courts and watchdogs such as the Arizona Dept. of Insurance merely give us lip service. So they can and do intentionally kick us around as they have with us in this accident situation. We need to find a way to turn this thing around or the greed and indifference of companies like GEICO will destroy everything we have believed in.

Once again, I challenge GEICO. Prove me wrong and I will pay you

$1,000 and apologize in any manner you desire, within reason. I have made my accusations and statements and I will not hide behind court conclusions based on bias or contrived police reports. As I have done since 11/10/98, I am the first in line with the facts and the truth. I don't just believe that GEICO was negligent and deceitful in this matter! I can prove it!!!

Anyone who wishes to challenge me on what I have stated may call me at (623) 933-3689 but they should be prepared to visit me and spend approximately 3-5 hours to go over the entire matter. I will hide from no one but discussing only a few of the facts is not appropriate. Any individual taking me up on this will depart that meeting with the belief of all that I have stated herein and with the belief that the Pinkerton Security Services driver caused this accident.

"Although my problem with GEICO has not been one of money, it has reached that point and I most certainly am interested in going after them for monies to cover the damage to our car, our health, and our lives. I am also interested in extending this quest for monies from Pinkerton Security Service and Sun Health Corporation of Sun City, Arizona both of whom have acted irresponsibly in the matter of my wife's accident.

The irresponsible action of those entities in this matter will be included in my next update within the next two days."

NOTE: I cannot state as indicated in the instructions that "I want my money back" since it is not that type of situation and as much as I appreciate you allowing me this opportunity to air this problem, in view of the "bad faith" that I have been subjected to over the past two year, it is difficult to put any monies up front.

The only thing I can say is that should we be able to collect any significant monies from these entities, we would be most generous as to the percentage given to your organization or anyone else that would represent our interests.

GEICO has proven their "bad faith" all by themselves. It is a matter of record. As for the other entities, their actions and/or inaction clearly show their bias and/or avoidance of responsible conduct. That will be explained very shortly.