FOLLOW US

This is the case of Day v. Geico Casualty Co. et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

This lawsuit concerns a premium credit program that was run by Defendants GEICO Casualty Company, GEICO General Insurance Company, and GEICO Indemnity Company (“GEICO”).

The plaintiff alleges that at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in April 2020, GEICO announced their “GEICO Giveback” program that provided a 15% discount on new and renewed insurance policies.

According to the record, Plaintiff Jessica Day accuses GEICO of engaging in unfair business practices by failing to provide additional refunds even though fewer claims were being reported as a result of fewer miles driven and fewer vehicle accidents.

Relevant Factual and Procedural Background

The plaintiff moved to certify a class including “[a]ll California residents who purchased automobile, motorcycle, or RV insurance from GEICO covering any portion of the time period from March 1, 2020, to the present.”

Geico, who is represented by Damon N. Vocke, Ronald M. Lepinskas, and Daniel B. Heidtke of Duane Morris LLP, opposed class certification claiming it was improper.

On Monday, A federal judge in San Jose, Ca. ruled that the suit can proceed as a class action, finding that the two-million policyholders' claims are worthy of class treatment.

The order of Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District, states that the class shall include any California resident who has a Geico personal auto, motorcycle, or RV policy covering any period since March 2020.

Judge Freeman also said that the plaintiff had pointed to common questions of law and fact and had proposed a damages model that is capable of accurately calculating damages to the class members.

Geico’s Argument Against Class Certification

Counsel for Geico vehemently argued that a class lawsuit would be unmanageable because of the many differences among policyholders and the complexities of the Plaintiff’s damages model, as well as issues of timing.

Judge Freeman did not agree, instead stating in her order, that the damages model already accounts for the differences Geico cites, and if timing becomes an issue in the future, Geico could request decertification at that time.

The judge also pointed out that Day had identified questions of law or fact that are common to the class, and those questions include whether Geico had a general policy or business practice of overcharging rates that were not based on an accurate risk assessment and whether it was routine for the insurer to fail to provide adequate refunds to its policyholders.