Disclosure of Safeco regarding auto insurance surcharge
The Court of Appeal in Los Angeles California has ruled that Safeco which is an insurance company based in Seattle, should make all the information regarding customers who had to pay a surcharge for not having insurance on a continuous basis. The plaintiffs in this case had stated that some of the surcharges had not been approved and the fact that they had been disclosed was in violation of the insurance rules and regulations in the state of California.
In 2002, consumer watchdog had taken some stakes in the Safeco auto insurance company. Once this process had been completed, the company sued the Safeco insurance company for violating the insurance laws in the state of California. According to this law, insurance companies are not allowed to surcharge or refuse to insure vehicles because they did not have any kind of auto insurance policy previously. Another fact which came to light was that Safeco had not made all its practices known to Insurance commissioner which is a huge violation of insurance laws in California.
In 2004, insurance companies and many other businesses got together and decided to vote. The vote was against law suits which were a simple waste of time in their view. Safeco also stated that Consumer watchdog should not be allowed to file a legal case on behalf of the public investors. Some civilian volunteers came forward to assist consumer watchdog but they were told that their help was not required.
In the current circumstances, any person who has taken insurance from Safeco is not aware as to whether he has been surcharged. An appeal was made to the Los Angeles Superior Court requesting that Safeco provide the names of the customers who had been surcharged so that they could also be included as a part of the law suit. All the documents and evidence which had been provided by Safeco were investigated. After the investigation, the Los Angeles Superior court ruled that the Safeco insurance company definitely had a surcharge policy using which they used to charge customers who did not have any kind of insurance previously. This was evidence enough to prove the complaint which had been filed by the plaintiff.
Harry Rosen field who belongs to the nonprofit organization named Consumer watchdog has stated that this court ruling has proved to be a big boon for those people who have taken any kind of insurance policy from Safeco after paying such a large amount which the company was not legally allowed to charge. The insurance laws have been violated with the full knowledge of the authorities in Safeco and they have tried to hide from the legal authorities as well as the insurance regulatory authorities. Safeco has concealed its mistake and it is legally bound to answer for its actions. But only the people working in Safeco know who are the customers who have been paying this kind of surcharge.