When are price increases fair, and how should they be imposed? The complaint for this action claims that Government Employees Insurance Company (Geico) provided a quote for a six-month car insurance policy, then raised the rate only a few months later, before the end of the six-month period.
The class for this action is all consumers who, during the applicable statute of limitations through the present, bought or attempted to buy Geico’s insurance services, who agreed to a quoted price, and whose charges were then increased.
Plaintiff Darko Vukovic went looking for insurance for his vehicle in May 2018. He called Geico and asked for a price quotation without giving the representative his vehicle identification number (VIN). The representative gave him a quote for $629.10 as a six-month premium.
The following day, he called again and asked for a quotation, this time giving his vehicle’s VIN. The Geico representative entered the VIN and later sent him an e-mail. The complaint quotes the e-mail as saying, “If you were to apply the quoted vehicle changes, you new six-month premium would be $629.10.”
Vukovic then took out an insurance policy with Geico for the vehicle. He set up his account with an auto-pay feature.
Later that summer, the complaint says, he noticed that the amount charged to his account was $718.60. Assuming it was an error, the complaint says, he contacted Geico and tried to get a refund. However, it seems that Geico did not think the amount was in error. It did not refund any money and has continued to charge his account at the new rate, the complaint says.
The complaint claims that Vukovic would not have taken out the policy if he had known that the company would raise the price on it so quickly, and without any warning. The complaint claims that Geico is “duping consumers” and says it believes it is the company’s “policy and practice to misrepresent the true price, nature and quality of its insurance services.”
The complaint claims that the company has violated the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, by engaging in a deceptive trade practice. It includes a long list of practices forbidden by the Act, including “Advertis[ing] goods, services, or property with intent not to sell them as advertised” and “Mak[ing] false or misleading statements of fact concerning the price of goods, services, or property or the reasons for, existence of, or amounts of price reductions[.]”