Michelle is an insurance analyst at Forbes Advisor. He has been a journalist for more than 30 years and has written about consumer insurance for the past decade. Before turning to insurance, Michelle was a lifestyle reporter for the New York Daily News, editor of a consumer technology magazine, a foreign correspondent for Time, and a reporter for several local news agencies and newspapers. In his affidavit, Ramírez did not claim that Geico had misrepresented him and, instead, only addressed his allegation that Geico unfairly delayed the payment of his claims.
Therefore, we concluded that Ramirez did not present more than a shred of evidence to support his claim that Geico violated any of the provisions of the Texas Insurance Code, as alleged in his petition. Ramirez seems to agree that Geico did pay all of his medical bills and that his only complaint focused on Geico's alleged delay. The lawyer then informed the court that Ramirez's lawsuit for damage to the car had been paid, that his medical bills had also been paid under the personal injury protection (PIP) benefits (PIP) portion of his policy, and that the lawsuit was not based on a breach of the insurance policy. Although Ramirez stated that Geico had violated this provision, he admitted in his response to Geico's request for summary judgment that Geico notified him within two days of the accident that he had coverage and provided guidance on how to proceed with his claim.
GEICO refused to provide most of the data and information requested by Consumer Watchdog, and the Department approved the increase yesterday without requiring GEICO to submit the information. An affirmative misrepresentation of insurance coverage may result in claims under the Texas Insurance Code. States regulate insurance companies, thanks to the McCarran-Ferguson Act, a 1945 federal law that exempts the insurance business from federal regulation. This is an appeal against an order granting a summary judgment in favor of the Government Employee Insurance Company (Geico), which dismisses two lawsuits that Daniel Ramírez filed against Geico under the Deceptive Business Practices Act (DTPA) and the Texas Insurance Code, for alleged delays in paying their claims.
He goes on to say that, even if Geico had alleged “payment” as an affirmative defense in his plea of reply, he would not have had the right to file a motion for summary judgment without evidence based on that supposed affirmative defense and that, instead, Geico would have had to file a traditional summary judgment, presenting his own evidence in support of that motion. Similarly, Ramirez seems to believe that Geico took on the burden of proving that it did not violate the provisions of the DTPA and the Texas Insurance Code. We concluded that Ramirez failed to comply with his obligation to present more than a shred of evidence to support his claim that Geico made an actionable misrepresentation or omission under the Texas Insurance Code. The New Jersey Ombudsman helps consumers with issues related to insurance availability, claims processing, coverage questions, and other issues related to insurance consumer education and assistance.
In its second issue, Ramírez argues that the trial court made a mistake in dismissing his cause of action for Geico's alleged violations of the Texas Insurance Code. When he discovered Geico's “plan”, it made him feel like a “victim”, that he felt “afraid” and panicked when he heard or saw the word GEICO, and caused him to wake up at night with a “constant concern” about why GEICO used a late payment plan to force him to stop his medical treatment.
