In respondent Edo’s case, the court h eld that GEICO’s use of his credit report to set his in surance rate constituted an “adverse action” under the FCRA, be- cause the company relied on th e report and, if Edo’s credit rating had been better, he would have been charged a lower rate.
23 Indeed, had GEICO not intended to use Edo’s report in connection with the underwriting of insurance, such as to set his insurance rate, it would have obtained the report wi thout any permissible purpose, in violation of 15 U.S.C.
GEICO’s Erroneous Underst anding Of The Adverse Action Provision Was Not Willful While GEICO erred in concluding that no adverse action report was required in Edo’s situation, the district court’s grant of summary judgment was proper becau se GEICO’s departure from the FCRA’s terms was not ob - jectively reckless.
Corporate conductConfirmedAgainst
Geico required policyholder for additional docs under threat of cancellation
Geico required the policyholder to submit additional documentation under threat of cancellation.
"Geico and Travelers offer drivers protection during times of emergencies, but these companies failed to protect consumers' personal information," James said in a statement.
“GEICO and Travelers offer drivers protection during times of emergencies, but these companies failed to protect consumers’ personal information,” said Attorney General James.
Corporate conductAllegationAgainst
GEICO sued Stoyanovsky and Khavko for allegedly running an insurance fraud scheme
Stoyanovsky and Khavko are two businessmen with close ties to ex-Adams chief of staff Frank Carone, who were sued by GEICO in 2024 for allegedly running a similar insurance fraud scheme.
Stoyanovsky and Khavko are two businessmen with close ties to ex-Adams chief of staff Frank Carone, who were sued by GEICO in 2024 for allegedly running a similar insurance fraud scheme.
Restaurateur and friend of Eric Adams pleads not guilty to insurance fraud, alongside 2 men previously sued by GEICO | amNewYork
Workplace equityAllegationAgainst
GEICO was sued over alleged age-based employment discrimination
GEICO, an auto insurance company, was sued Tuesday in Georgia Middle District Court over alleged age-based employment discrimination.
GEICO agreed to pay $1.65 million to settle the case rather than fight it further, covering roughly 7,200 people who disputed CLUE entries tied to GEICO between March 2022 and this past May.
GEICO, filed in March 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
It separately obligates whoever fed the information into that file in the first place, GEICO in this case, to genuinely reinvestigate a claim entry once a customer disputes it, and to tell LexisNexis to fix or delete anything that turns out to be wrong.