$292K Reliant General Insurance Renewal Service Fee Class Action Settlement (CA Only)

Who is a Class Member

The Reliant General Insurance Renewal Service Fee Class Action Settlement includes “all California residents who paid in full for one or more one-month policies of insurance through Reliant for which Occidental was the insurer and for which Reliant and/or Occidental billed and collected one or more Renewal Service Fees at any time between April 29, 2012 through December 14, 2017.”

If you don’t qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other class action settlements you may be eligible for.

Settlement Amount

  • $292,000.00

Estimated Award

  • TBD

Class Members who do not exclude themselves from the settlement will be eligible to automatically receive a pro rata (equal) share of the net settlement fund. The amount of your payout will depend among other things, on the total number of valid claims received.

Proof of Purchase

  • N/A

Claim Form

  • N/A

Reliant General Insurance Renewal Service Fee Settlement Notes

  • Molly Rivera v. Reliant General Insurance Services, Inc., et al.
  • Case No. 37-2016-00014373-CU-BT-CTL
  • Pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego

Plaintiff Molly Rivera brought this class action lawsuit alleging that Reliant General Insurance is in violation of California Insurance Code section 381(f) which requires that the premium (the total cost to purchase the insurance in full) be disclosed in the insurance policy.

Specifically, Rivera states that in September 2014, she purchased through Reliant, a one-month auto insurance policy for which Occidental was the insurer and which provided coverage from September 18, 2014 to October 18, 2014. She renewed the policy in October and again in November 2014 through Reliant. During each of these transactions, Reliant acted a broker and agent for Occidental and assisted in arranging the auto insurance policies. However, Rivera contends that Reliant collected Renewal Service Fees associated with each of her policies without properly disclosing them.

These Renewal Service Fees are the $9 fee referred to on policyholders’ billing statements as a “Service Fee”) and are paid at the beginning of each of  new policy terms when policyholders renew their auto insurance policy and who paid their premium in full.

Reliant and Occidental both deny the allegations but nonetheless agreed to settle to avoid the uncertainty, costs, and delay of further litigation. Complete details about the case and settlement can be found on the Reliant General Insurance Renewal Service Fee Settlement website.

Class members who wish to exclude themselves or object to the Reliant General Insurance Renewal Service Fee settlement must do so by May 10, 2018. Class members who wish to receive a cash payment from the settlement do not need to do anything.

Important Dates

  • 5/10/18 Objection or Exclusion Deadline
  • 5/25/18: Final Hearing at 11:00 a.m. PT* (class members do not need to attend this hearing in order to receive a slice of the settlement pie).

*Settlement Class Members who wish to speak at the hearing should check www.RiveraInsuranceSettlement.com to confirm that the date or time of the Hearing has not been changed.

Contact Information

  • Mail: Rivera v. Reliant General Insurance Services Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 404041, Louisville, KY  40233-4041
  • Phone: 1-866-962-4433 (Class Counsel)

Class Counsel

Settlement Website

GEICO Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Unsafe Vehicle Repairs

GEICO has been slammed with a proposed nationwide class action lawsuit alleging the auto insurance provider routinely refuses to compensate policyholders for essential vehicle repairs.

Oregon plaintiff Leif Hansen, owner of Leif’s Auto Collison Centers, brought the GEICO class action lawsuit, specifically taking issue with GEICO’s alleged practice of not covering electronic scans of policyholders’ vehicles after collision repairs. He details his experience stating that in November 2017 the rear bumper of his GM Sierra 3500 was damaged in a collision. He filed a claim with GEICO and took his vehicle for a repair estimate at a local auto body shop. During this appointment, Hansen requested pre- and post-repair electronic scans to ensure that his vehicle was repaired safely and completely.

According to the GEICO class action lawsuit, Hansen knew the electronic scans were a necessary part of collision repairs from his experience as an owner of a group of Portland-area auto repair shops. These pre – and post-repair electronic scans cost around $100 and use software to test for diagnostic trouble codes that help ensure safe repairs.

However, Hansen says that GEICO’s representatives have continuously refused to authorize these scans unless there was a maintenance light illuminated on the vehicle’ dash. The GEICO class action lawsuit asserts that by not paying for these scans, GEICO is putting the truck at risk for having undetected repairs and being unsafe to drive.

Many auto manufacturers, including Nissan, Honda, Toyota, and General Motors have issued public statements requiring or recommending that auto collision repair shops use electronic scans before and after repairs. Additionally, the Automotive Service Association endorses electronic system scanning as necessary for safe collision repairs. Both the ASA and auto manufacturers require or recommend pre – and post-repair electronic scans whether or not maintenance lights are illuminated on a vehicle’s dash.

Hansen says his issue with GEICO is not isolated and that he has first-hand knowledge that GEICO routinely denies coverage for these essential electronic scans, including those for airbag and steering system repairs. Earlier in 2017, for example, a customer brought a car to one of Hansen’s auto repair shops. The car had airbag and steering problems that could have been avoided had GEICO authorized electronic scans to detect unresolved damage.

“By refusing to compensate policyholders for electronic scans, GEICO violates the terms of its car insurance policies to each policyholder. Without the electronic scans, damage to the policyholder’s vehicles goes undetected; system problems go unexplained; and GEICO puts unsafe cars back on the roads.”

The GEICO class action lawsuit is seeking certification for a nationwide Class of current and former GEICO car insurance policyholders in the United States who suffered losses caused by collisions from 2011 to present.

Hansen and the proposed nationwide class are represented by Steven D. Olson and Paul Conable of Tonkon Torp LLP.

The GEICO Class Action Lawsuit is Leif Hansen, et al. v. Government Employees Insurance Company, Case No. 3:17-cv-01986, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland Division.