Complaint Review: GEICO

Amy Akins
Geico Claims Supervisor

P.O. Box 650253

Dallas, Texas75265-0253

 

Dear Supervisor Amy Akins

I hope you will remedy this situation now that it has been brought to your attention.  This is regarding what I consider unfair claims practices, unprofessional behavior, stonewalling, and engaging in bad faith negotiations.

 

This claim is a first party claim as it is a hit and run which falls under the uninsured/underinsured.  I have been insured under Geico for approximately 5 years.  I am owed common courtesy and professionalism.  In first party claims Geico should consider my interests as their own and negotiating in good faith to resolve this matter and not as adversaries.  Claims adjuster, Mr. Brandon Berry, has repeatedly been excessively rude and condescending.  He says an item is needed in order to process the claim and then once it is given he quickly says that he needs a different item.  The only point of asking for an excessive amount of things is to delay, stall and attempt to unfairly resolve losses for this car crash. During a phone call on May 8, 2009, Mr. Berry yelled at the top of his lungs, continuously for approximately 35 minutes even though I repeatedly attempted to get off the phone as I had an appointment to attend.  His yelling was so extensive I had to set the phone down and walk away.  I checked in every few minutes to see if he had stopped yelling or if I could politely end the phone call.  He refused to end the call politely and continued yelling until eventually he rudely hung up on me.  This behavior is outrageously unprofessional and took place while I had been suffering from repeated and extensive nightmares about the crash and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which makes this behavior cruel.

The non-stop accusations, assertions and implications and suspicious mistrust about this claim is outrageous.  I am an ordained minister, former special education school teacher, and former childrens councilor, the idea that an entire community can trust me with their children but somehow my own insurance company cant trust what I say is outrageous.  In addition, the evidence supports my claims.

I have finally recovered from PTSD and can drive normally and I would like to settle this claim so I can move on with my life.  It appears to me that Mr. Berry has no interest in reasonably, and fairly, settling this case.  He has not reviewed or addressed the review of certain pieces of evidence and pretends to have more knowledge than a Doctor of Psychology and a Doctor of Chiropractic Medicine.  He also makes accusations and assertions about the car crash even though there is evidence to the contrary and on top of it all, he was not there.  His constant speculation and attempting to look for some possible alternative explanation, that would not hold up in court is illogical and bad faith.  If this goes to trial, it will be a civil trial, and the preponderance of evidence it what is considered.  If forced to sue GEICO then I will additionally pursue a bad faith and unfair negotiations claim.  I believe that the circumstances and ample evidence make this claim an easy one to solve.

Multiple attempts have been made to misconstrue what I say over the telephone.  Examples include my saying that the video at the scene of the crash proves a certain point.  Then an attempt is made to imply that I was recording or otherwise using a video camera WHILE I was crashing.  Preposterous!  Adjusters needs to stick with the facts of the case and the actual evidence submitted and stop engaging in weird attempts to misconstrue what I say and make alternate interpretations and theories based exclusively on an attempt to wiggle out of paying an honest, fair, and fairly straight forward claim.  I have no pre-existing conditions, several witnesses, relatively low medical bills, when you consider that the vehicle was 100% totaled and ample evidence to support my claim. 

In a nutshell, the basic facts are this: 

1.  This is covered under uninsured motorist/hit and run. 

2.  Medical bills are a little under 7000 and is 100% CAUSED by the car crash.  

3.  Income lost was conservatively 2,800. 

4.  Emotional distress and suffering were EXTENSIVE. 

5.  I have a permanent 5% loss of motion in the left side of my neck due to one of the three left scaline muscles being ripped.  (scaline muscles hold your neck and ribcage up)  This additionally causes pain and discomfort on a re-occurring basis. 

Mr. Berry made an offer of $2550 (minus $1000 covered by my medical pay policy), which I received on October 31, 2009.  This is the same offer he made many months ago and then quickly said well I take it back, and then rudely hung up.  In addition, the previous adjuster (the 2nd adjuster), Andrea Restuccia, had already indicated that $5000 was her maximum authorization.  (Which I had discussed with Mr. Berry.)  This was BEFORE any medical records for PTSD, witness letters or a vast majority of evidence was submitted.

 

I demand to have a claims adjuster who would actually like to settle this claim without forcing it into court action, which, in the end, is more costly, and a waste of time and effort for us both, and a claims adjuster who understands that I AM INSURED WITH GEICO.  And that, as a CUSTOMER, I am owed an honest attempt to settle this fairly.  All attempts to look for tiny loopholes or possible alternate explanations to get out of paying an honest claim are not examples of good faith.

Examples of attempts to get out of fairly settling this claim include the following:

First, the most obvious and ridiculous attempt.  This was a hit and run and is covered under my uninsured motorist policy.  At the scene of the crash, Geico determined that this was covered under the uninsured motorist policy.  Geico reaffirms this continuously in every conversation and every offer.  Liability on this claim is abundantly clear.  Liability IS NOT AN ISSUE AND NEVER HAS BEEN.  In the letter dated October 21, 2009, for the first time in over 2 years, Mr. Berry attempts to assert that there is some question of liability on the phone and in writting.  Quote from paragraph 1 of letter dated Oct 31, 2009, In review of this loss there appears to be questions of liability There is NO question of liability, at all!  Geico, is 100% liable for all damages resulting from this car crash.  All attempts to assert otherwise are unprofessional, illegal and immoral.

2.  In the crash some personal property was broken due to the impact.  I spoke with Mr. Berry and Ms. Restuccia several times about this.  The only time I have been told I needed to submit any proof of the property damage is in a letter dated 5/11/09, in which I am asked to simply list the item.  I listed the item and additionally sent proof of property damage and value and I am told in a letter dated 10/21/09 that this is covered under a separate issue and to send the broken item to you.  The broken item is available to be inspected by a Geico representative at any of the local offices but under no circumstances am I required to let it out of my possession until an offer to compensate has been made.  In addition, if this broken item falls under a different policy, then either adjuster, if attempting to negotiate in good faith, could have simply let me know earlier in the process and would not have misled me to list the items and then turn around and say they need something else.

3.  A wage and income verification form and copies of bank statements were requested to evaluate lost wages on 7/11/09.  I submitted these and am now being told I need tax returns from 2005 to 2010!  This is excessive.  5 years of tax returns is highly unrelated and unneeded to evaluate a single month of lost income.  The Wage and Income verification form provided by Geico asks for 13 weeks of income verification.  I provided a full 5 months of income (21 weeks).  160% of normally requested verification, which is substantially above what was requested and in addition the wages are consistent across the months, were verified by the CEO of the company, and additional financial documents are included to verify these amounts were deposited into my account. 

 

4.  In the letter dated October 21, 2009, Mr. Berry first misconstrues the crash.   Asserting that I was in the slow lane when in fact I was next to the fast lane (where the offending vehicle was).  He asserts that I had an emergency lane directly next to me when in fact I had 2 traffic filled lanes between me and the emergency lane. The first lane next to me was filled with cars and the next lane (slow/merging lane) contained more traffic including a semi-truck when I finally got to that lane.  When I finally reached the emergency lane I was facing the concrete barrier head-on.  I used the emergency lane to quickly re-align the vehicle with traffic as the Rav-4, as many models of Rav-4s do, began to attempt to flip over immediately and multiple times throughout the incident.  I did extremely well in avoiding hitting the other cars and the semi-truck, and avoiding letting the car complete its attempt to flip over entirely, and avoided hitting the concrete barrier head on, and instead smashed into it from the passenger side and passenger front tire (which broke off).  On top of this, the other driver was marked 100% at fault.  If I had been in any way at fault or suspected at fault the police would have noted it or Geico would have mentioned it at some time early on, before medical bills were submitted.

 

5.  In the letter dated October 21, 2009, Mr. Berry addresses the time I received medical care as an issue.  First, he asserts that there were medical personnel who came to my aid.  There were none.  As I addressed multiple times, emergency personnel who were supposed to come to my aid instead went to another crash exactly across the street.  The police only came AFTER I called a second time.  A tow-truck arrived shortly after the police.  At no point, did any medical personnel arrive!  However, the police did notice my swollen and red neck and collarbone area.  I informed GEICO of my injuries immediately at the scene of the crash.  I additionally stated that I did not know if any of my body had directly hit any parts of the car as I was knocked out during the impact.  In my immediate call to Geico I was told people would be calling to assist me.  Two days later, and multiple other times I called Geico to ask about getting care for my injuries.  I was told someone would be calling me with information about medical care and that customer service could not help me.  I also asked the person who assessed damage to my vehicle.  Again I was told it would be handled by someone else.  Eventually, I received a letter from Paul Moran who said he would be helping me with my injuries and calling me soon.  I heard nothing from him and when I called Geico I was told he was unavailable or no longer worked there.  A new adjuster, Andrea Restuccia, was assigned.  I asked her what had happened to the previous adjuster, and was told very rudely that it was none of my business.  I was under the assumption that, like potential car repairs (car repair shops were calling me several times a day), that I had to see a Geico approved medical provider.  I stated this assumption to customer service representatives multiple times.  It was only after a third or forth call that I was informed I could see any medical provider.  I promptly made an appointment and began medical care.  The delay in time and the extension of my suffering was 100% caused by Geico.  Geicos own stalling to provide accurate information and prolonging my suffering is not something that Geico can now claim in their favor but instead shows a lack of care and operating in bad faith.  Geico additionally continuously refused to send out the contract on this policy during this entire time, which had been requested and recorded 12 separate times!

 

6.  All crashes are emotionally distressing and pain and suffering is accounted and compensated for but this crash had some factors that were excessively emotionally distressing and causing lots of pain and suffering.  These factors include 1.  That another person was 100% responsible.  2.  Police would not be able to find the responsible person.  3. It was a perfect storm in that, there was absolutely NO WAY for me to do anything but attempt to minimize damage.  The crash was imminent.  4.  I was knocked back into traffic partially (remaining in danger).  5.  The doors were smashed shut so I could not get out of the vehicle.  6.  I witnessed another crash.  7.  Emergency personnel were diverted to other crashes/or otherwise did not come to my aid until I called 911 a second time and then only the police arrived.  8.  While crashed and trapped in the vehicle another irresponsible dangerous driver attempted to drive up the emergency lane to bypass the heavy traffic, putting my life in danger yet again!  Ordinary common sense would assume that these factors make the crash more traumatizing and emotionally distressing.  All of these factors are clearly documented and verifiable.  None of these factors were mentioned or accounted for in evaluating my claim.  If, through some miracle, I would have suffered no injuries whatsoever, the fact is, this additional emotionally traumatic aspect of the crash, would still need to be accounted for.

 

7.  Mr. Berry asserts that my 2 calls to 911, to Geico, and to WITNESS show that I was of enough sound mind and this is his proof that I was not experiencing any trauma.  He is NO psychologist or mental health practitioner of any kind and has no authority or training to assert ANYTHING about my state of mind!  Outlandish!  I am not asserting that I became mentally invalid.  I was knocked unconscious as I was crashing into the concrete barrier and I regained consciousness as other people had parked and ran towards my car.  I assume that the length of time was less than a few minutes.  Mr. Berry asserts that because I called for help, to 911, GEICO, and WITNESS that this somehow proves that I was not injured.  In fact, my calls for help were ONLY because I was in trauma and needed help.  Most children know to call 911 when in danger.  In addition, in my call to Geico AND to WITNESS I was crying profusely and was obviously upset and crying and in my 911 call I was having trouble breathing and thinking.  The assertion that if someone calls for help then it is proof that they are NOT in need of help is preposterous and obviously an attempt to negotiate with no intension of being fair or attempting to resolve this issue.     

 

8.  Mr. Berry has additional facts mixed up and has completely overlooked or ignored other facts.  The first fact that is mixed up is the fact that I called 911 just as I was becoming conscious.  You can hear on the 911 call that I said Hi twice to the 911 operator as this was the only word that came to my mind.  In fact, besides saying hi twice the very first things I said were completely indecipherable.  I did not know where I was, and in fact was not even sure what state or city I was in at the time.  This is easily verified by the fact that I asked a witness who ran to my passenger side shattered window where am I as I was trying to tell the 911 operator where I was and I did not know.  In general the call was also chaotic, as at certain times I blurted out information that was relevant to the crash but was not relevant to the questions asked of me by the 911 operator.  Including It was a yellow SUV and the car is broke and other random bits of information.  It is clear that I suffered some temporary brain trauma at the moment of impact.     

 

9.  Mr. Berry asserts that I contacted WITNESS moments following this loss.  This is stated as supposed support for his assertion that I was of sound mind and therefore was  not knocked unconscious.  Again, I do not assert that I lay there knocked unconscious for hours without end.  And in fact I did not call WITNESS immediately.  I called her because I was panicking and freaking out.  As she states in her witness letter I was crying so much that I could not speak and that in her opinion I was panicked, terrified, extremely frightened, and crying hysterically.  I called her because I felt like I needed to run away from the crash and was certain I was going to die if I stayed there.  She calmed me down and encouraged me to do something to take my mind off of the crash and to stop looking at the more deadly crash across the street.  It was at this point that I began to video record from the inside of the car.  I state the time (337) and then say I need to keep my mind off  and then talk about the pain in my neck.  In this video and even in the 2^nd video I took when police arrived you can easily see that my face is wet with tears and my eyes and nose are puffy and red from crying. Common sense would suggest that this crash was emotionally and mentally traumatic, but in addition, I just happen to have several pieces of evidence to support this fact.          

 

10.  Mr. Berry asserts that in video 2, I was of enough sound mind to get a camcorder to begin recording this loss, walking out, unprotected, onto a busy roadway  from what appears to be a considerable distance from your vehicle.  What he says is a considerable distance is the space between the concrete wall I smashed into and the distance the car traveled as it bounced off the concrete wall and back into traffic. This second video was taken when the police arrived.  I was protected by the police, who had parked behind me.  The suggestion that I would somehow stay in a crashed car instead of speaking with the police, is ludicrous.  The implication that this is somehow to his favor in negotiations is additionally ludicrous.  When the police finally arrived, over an hour later, was the first moment I finally felt safe at the scene of the crash.  Even if only for a  moment.

11.  The entire phrase of enough sound mind makes no sense.  If one is crying at a funeral, then they are grieved, but may or may not be of sound mind.  If one is laughing profusely at a funeral and talking to a rock then that person is most likely not of sound mind.  Being terrified, fearful and grieved after a crash is being of sound mind.  Calling for help is also of sound mind, as is recording a video to take ones mind off of the crash.  No one claims that I went mentally insane at the crash. 

12.  Mr. Berry stated that it was not clear that I went to Dr. O. for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder related to this crash and so I have included additional documentation from Dr. O. that states the following:  1.  That all psychotherapy sessions were for PTSD.  2.  That treatment was medically necessary.  3.  That treatment was about the car crash that took place on October 15, 2007.  Witness letters additionally verify the symptoms and emotional stress experienced throughout these 2 years.  For your reference, I have included the Full DSM Diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

309.81    DSM-IV Criteria for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder

The traumatic event is persistently reexperienced in one (or more) of the following ways: 

(1) recurrent and intrusive distressing recollections of the event, including images, thoughts, or perceptions. Note: In young children, repetitive play may occur in which themes or aspects of the trauma are expressed.

(2) recurrent distressing dreams of the event. Note: In children, there may be frightening dreams without recognizable content.

(3) acting or feeling as if the traumatic event were recurring (includes a sense of reliving the experience, illusions, hallucinations, and dissociative flashback episodes, including those that occur upon awakening or when intoxicated). Note: In young children, trauma-specific reenactment may occur.

(4) intense psychological distress at exposure to internal or external cues that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event.

(5) physiological reactivity on exposure to internal or external cues that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event.

C. Persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma and numbing of general responsiveness (not present before the trauma), as indicated by three (or more) of the following: 

(1) efforts to avoid thoughts, feelings, or conversations associated with the trauma 

(2) efforts to avoid activities, places, or people that arouse recollections of the trauma

(3) inability to recall an important aspect of the trauma 

(4) markedly diminished interest or participation in significant activities 

(5) feeling of detachment or estrangement from others 

(6) restricted range of affect (e.g., unable to have loving feelings) 

(7) sense of a foreshortened future (e.g., does not expect to have a career, marriage, children, or a normal life span)

D. Persistent symptoms of increased arousal (not present before the trauma), as indicated by two (or more) of the following: 

(1) difficulty falling or staying asleep 
(2) irritability or outbursts of anger 
(3) difficulty concentrating 
(4) hypervigilance 
(5) exaggerated startle response

E. Duration of the disturbance (symptoms in Criteria B, C, and D) is more than one month.

F. The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

13.  Concerning permanency of physical injuries, as documented by Dr. B. I have a 5% loss of motion on the left side of my neck.  For your reference, at request, I have additional medical studies for your review concerning permanency and lasting effects after car crashes.  The fact is, before this crash, I experienced NO pain in my neck/ scaline muscles or back, no discomfort, and no inability to move freely without any restraint.  I did not EVER need to be extra careful about activities involving my neck and I did not experience any pain as I tried to sleep on an ordinary pillow.  Now, a full 2 years after the crash, I remain with some pain, discomfort and loss of motion in my neck.  I have to sleep on specially designed pillows in order to reduce discomfort.  I additionally have a new concern in evaluating daily activities and adjusting my life to not further reinjure my neck or back as it is weaker than before.  As expected with ANY injury or ANY damage, things are not the same as before.  I am an athletic person, and love to exercise as a stress relieving activity, and previously have never needed any medical care for my entire adult life.  This injury and reoccurring pain and discomfort are very intrusive and disruptive to my otherwise healthy lifestyle.

I appreciate your attention in helping successfully resolve this claim.  If one looks at the totality of the evidence, instead of spending time and energy on looking for story telling opportunities then this case is easy to close and settle without needing further legal, regulatory and public action, though I am prepared to take this as far as it needs to go to be resolved successfully.

TO NM INSURANCE COMMISSION:

I have provided the suggested documentation from my doctor stating that treatment was directly related to the car crash and was medically necessary.  Regarding medical record releases:  They have had medical releases in their possession for quite some time.  If GEICO led you to believe, they do not have medical releases they are being untruthful.  I also have a confirmation letter stating that they received the medical releases.  Despite having received all of this GEICO has made no additional contact with me concerning resolving this claim.  I feel they are stalling. 

I initially contacted the insurance commission substantially before a demand letter or the full package of evidence had been submitted to GEICO because of the way they were behaving.  I thought it amounted to bad faith and wanted to know the laws concerning this.  I was told by Morris Chavez to wait until I had an official response in writing before submitting an official complaint.  Which I did.

My initial concerns are as follows.

1.  Immediately after the crash they raised my premium by $20/month without any notice.  (It is set for automatic debit paid in full for 6 months at a time).  When I asked why the premium had been raised they

1. 1^st
   
   said they did not know why and I would have to call back to speak to
   
   someone else. 
2. 2^nd
   
   time I called they said I called after hours and they can only answer
   
   those kind of questions during business hours, and they would leave a
   
   message for someone to call later. 
3. 3^rd
   
   time I called they said they did not raise my rates, that they are the
   
   same as before. 
4. I
   
   asked for a supervisor, they then said oh I see you had elected to use
   
   your car for business.  I told the
   
   person I did not do that, and that clearly it was because of the claim and
   
   that since this was an uninsured motorist and have no blame in this crash
   
   my personal rates should not be raised. 
   
   They said they would look into it and to call back after some time
   
   (I think they said 5 business days, but I am not sure). 
5. I then
   
   called back and they said that they no longer cover any business vehicles
   
   and that the rate was dropped back to what it was pre-crash.
6. When I
   
   called a couple days later to confirm the rate, they said it had never
   
   been changed and they have no evidence of any changes in rate.  (The debit card was refunded)

2.  Refusal to provide a copy of the contract covering the time during the crash, the current contract and the contract from when I first signed up.  I asked for a contract policy a minimum of 12 separate times and have been told the following: 

1. By the
   
   claims adjuster, that I would need to contact customer service for that
   
   information. 
2. Customer
   
   service repeatedly sent me the policy coverage document, though I read it
   
   word for word and told them that was not what I wanted but I wanted the
   
   actual contract with the legal terms. 
   
   
3. That
   
   they (the person on the phone) dont have access to contracts and someone
   
   would call back with access.
4. When I
   
   would call back, they would say they have nothing in their file confirming
   
   the previous conversation or that someone would call back.
5. Over
   
   the email, they said email was not secure and could not be used for
   
   official business.  
6. Several
   
   customer service representatives argued with me about why I needed the
   
   contract and insisted I do not need one. 
   
   
7. That
   
   the renewal notice has the policy changes on it, and that is all I need to
   
   know.
8. That
   
   if I want to know the policy I just need to call and ask them and that
   
   would suffice. 
9. That
   
   they find it suspicious and doubt my motives for wanting a copy of the
   
   contract and will be putting that in my file.
10. That I
    
    should have kept the original contract from 2001.
11. That
    
    they did not store records that long and since I am an older customer they
    
    would have to research it. 
12. Then
    
    upon a call back was told that they can not do this because I am now
    
    enrolled in e-policy and have no paper documents.
13. I must
    
    go to the online customer service center and the contract would be
    
    there.  I went to the customer
    
    service center online and the contract was not there.  I repeatedly was told that they had
    
    updated it in the system and if I go look in 24 hours the contract would
    
    be there.  It was not, and continues
    
    to not be available online. 
14. Eventually
    
    I received a generic copy with legal terms but I do not know what exactly
    
    this refers to since I asked for the original contract, the contract that
    
    covered the crash, and the current contract.

3.  They have repeatedly minimized liability and said the following things. 

1. You
   
   are not even the primary driver, so we really dont owe you anything.   
2. You
   
   arent on the title of the crashed car, so you really have no claim. 
3. The
   
   payment comes in the primary drivers name so you really are trying to
   
   collect on a policy that isnt really yours.
4. We
   
   dont owe you anything, this offer is just out of courtesy and to avoid
   
   hassle.
5. If I
   
   had health insurance, part of the bills would be covered by them, so they
   
   only owe part of the health care and they should not be penalized because
   
   I do not have health insurance. 
6. If I
   
   had workers compensation, then part of the lost wages would fall under
   
   that insurance so they do not cover lost wages. (I was not working during
   
   the crash).
7. In
   
   regards to paying the current Chiropractic charges, which was completed
   
   earlier, that they are not responsible for the interest charges, can only
   
   issue 1 check, and if I am concerned about my credit and accruing interest
   
   then I should just settle the entire claim now.  (This was before medical treatment and
   
   evidence was complete)   

4.  Geico repeatedly has been difficult and uncooperative in evidence about the case.

1. They repeatedly
   
   said they could not look a video or an mp3 at the crash.
2. They
   
   said they do not need and will not look at witness letters and that
   
   witnesses are not considered.
3. They
   
   said they do not care what the CEO of my company says my wages are.
4. When
   
   they have refused to look at and evaluate evidence I have submitted I
   
   asked what would be acceptable evidence and they said they can not tell me
   
   what they will accept or they make a ridiculous demand (prove that you
   
   have no pre-existing conditions, prove your income for the past 5 years,
   
   prove you didnt have nightmares about your head being cut off before this
   
   crash)
5. When I
   
   have gotten them to say what they will accept/need as evidence, after it
   
   is submitted, they say they want something different.  (My letter to Supervisor Amy Akins
   
   explains this in more detail).

5.  GEICO has been uncooperative and condescending with no interest in reasonably solving this claim

1. Quote
   
   I have been in an accident before and I didnt have any problems.
2. Paraphrase
   
   You are athletic and healthy, so you recovered quickly and there really
   
   wasnt much damage, besides, if there is any you would heal quickly
3. They
   
   continuously make up stories and alternate explanations instead of simply relying
   
   on facts and then tell me I must counter their alternate explanation.  Ex, Can you prove that you had not had
   
   medical treatment before. Can you prove that your lost wages are not due
   
   to simply going on vacation after the crash, Why didnt you just work
   
   later in the day to make up for work lost while at the doctors. 
4. Saying
   
   that since I called 911 there was no real damage or stress.
5. Calling
   
   at exact opposite hours that I requested and not being available when I
   
   set up a time in advance to speak with them.
6. When I
   
   told them I would like them to stop calling me until I had fully
   
   recovered, as I was feeling more upset and aggravated by their constant
   
   adversarial calls, they called more often and continued pressuring
   
   me into accepting low ball offers below medical bills and lost wages.
7. Regularly
   
   sent letters saying that they will close the case in 15 days.
8. Would
   
   call and leave blank messages on my voice mail, using mute.
9. They
   
   have refused to give accurate information from the beginning concerning
   
   medical care, forms/evidence needed and claims processing.
10. Said
    
    they needed my statement 3 separate times.  On the last occasion, I said why do you
    
    need another statement, and was told that if I dont do another statement
    
    then I am probably guilty or have something to hide.  (I did the 3^rd statement).
11. In a
    
    call by Brandon Berry, he screamed at the top of his lungs for 35 minutes
    
    straight and continuously tried to get me to say inaccurate things.
12. GEICO adjusters,
    
    have in a non-stop manor, tried to get me to say inaccurate things and
    
    when I will not they get abusive and angry. 
13. Refusing
    
    to give me the supervisors information (Andrea Restuccia did this).

6.  They have completely ignored certain factors in the crash

1. That I
   
   was trapped in the car, in heavy freeway traffic, as the doors were
   
   inoperably smashed.
2. That
   
   another car crash happened exactly opposite of me.
3. That
   
   emergency personnel went to the more deadly crash, instead of me,
   
   prolonging my wait.
4. I had
   
   to call 911 twice before anyone came to my aid.
5. That
   
   another illegal driver came speeding up the side of the road in an attempt
   
   to illegally pass traffic, putting my life in danger yet again.
6. The
   
   fact that the police were unable to catch the other driver combined with
   
   the fact that I was 100% innocent and this crash was inevitable made this
   
   more emotionally traumatizing.   

To date, I have not seen or even heard of a single piece of documentation that GEICO has that contradicts anything I have asserted.