Geico Insurance Company Sued for Adding Strangers to Policies
A customer of the American insurance company Geico is suing the company after it, according to her, added two complete strangers to her auto insurance policy without her consent, leading to an increase in her monthly payments. The filed lawsuit aims to obtain class-action status to represent other Geico customers who may have had a similar experience.
How Did It Happen?
According to the lawsuit filed in a Florida federal court on January 28, the plaintiff, Alison Cain, claims that in February 2024, Geico sent her an email stating that a person named Carter K. Riddle could be a licensed driver using her address as their primary residence. Cain did not respond within 15 days, after which Geico automatically added Riddle to her insurance policy.
Geico Ordered To Pay $5.2M To Woman Who Contracted STD In One Of Its Customers’ Cars
In December 2024, another stranger—Angelina Marchand—was, according to Cain, added to her policy. Cain insists she has never known a person by that name and that no one with that name lives at her address.
Claims Regarding the Company’s Operating Mechanism
The lawsuit alleges that Geico relied on data from third-party sources to identify licensed drivers and added them to policies without verifying any actual connection to the policyholder. Furthermore, Cain also claims that the company repeatedly refused to remove from her policy individuals who had been added in error.
Additionally, the lawsuit states that Geico did not verify the residence of the added drivers and did not disclose the data or the consumer reporting agency it relied on to obtain this information.
What Is Geico Accused Of?
Geico is accused of breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. In addition to seeking class-action status for other Geico customers who faced the same issue, the complaint also demands a jury trial, as well as compensation for damages, court costs, and attorney fees.
This case highlights the potential risks of automation in the insurance industry, especially when decisions affecting customers’ finances are made based on unverified data from external sources. It also raises questions about transparency and consent in the digital age, where personal information can easily be transferred between companies. For insurers, this may serve as a signal to review internal data verification procedures and customer communication to avoid similar conflicts in the future and maintain trust.