Law360 is providing free access to its coronavirus coverage to make sure all members of the legal community have accurate information in this time of uncertainty and change. Use the form below to sign up for any of our weekly newsletters. Signing up for any of our section newsletters will opt you in to the weekly Coronavirus briefing.
Sign up for our Class Action newsletter
You must correct or enter the following before you can sign up:
Thank You!
Law360 (June 14, 2021, 9:33 PM EDT ) An Illinois federal judge on Monday denied Geico's effort to certify an interlocutory appeal in a suit alleging Geico has been unfairly profiting off the COVID-19 pandemic by charging "unconscionably excessive" premiums.
U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman said Geico failed to establish how an interlocutory appeal would accelerate the litigation process when its own online statement could have deceived customers by overcharging premiums when people were not regularly on the road during the lockdown last year.
Last July, Briana Siegal filed a proposed class action against the auto insurer, alleging Geico overcharged premiums at a time people were not driving to work or school, causing fewer car accidents on the road.
According to the suit, Geico and many auto insurers responded to the pandemic by creating discount programs, and Geico developed the "GEICO Giveback" program, which provided new or renewing customers discounts on their six- or 12-month policies. The auto insurer has stated on its website that "we are passing these savings on to our auto, motorcycle and RV customers," according to the suit.
However, Judge Coleman said on Monday the insurer's online statement "had the capacity to deceive consumers as to the portion of savings that Geico was passing on to them via the 'GEICO Giveback' program under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act."
In March, the judge partially dismissed Geico's motion for summary judgment. Judge Coleman nixed Siegal's frustration of purpose, unjust enrichment and breach of contract claims against Geico but left intact the unfair and deceptive conduct claims.
The auto insurer subsequently asked the court to certify an interlocutory appeal. It has called the proposed class action "far out of bounds," saying it's not prudent or legal to review its premium calculation as the customers asked it to.
Geico has failed to establish how an interlocutory appeal "would speed up litigation for the simple reason that there are remaining claims in this lawsuit concerning the unfairness section of the ICFA," the judge said.
According to the proposed class action, Siegal has alleged Geico's program applies a 15% discount on new and renewal auto insurance policies but doesn't apply it to premiums that customers have already paid or will continue to pay on policies already existing at the start of the pandemic.
Siegal has pointed to reports from the Center for Economic Justice and the Consumer Federation of America, which found that at least a 30% minimum average premium refund would be needed to correct the "unfair windfall" insurers like Geico saw between mid-March and the end of April.
Siegal is looking to represent a class of all Illinois drivers who purchased personal auto, motorcycle or RV insurance from Geico covering any portion of time between March 2020 and July 2020.
Counsel for the parties could not be immediately reached for comment Monday.
Siegal is represented by Ryan R. Stephan, James B. Zouras and Teresa M. Becvar of Stephan Zouras LLP and Matthew H. Morgan, Robert L. Schug and Charles A. Delbridge of Nichols Kaster PLLP.
Geico is represented by Lisa T. Scruggs of Duane Morris LLP.
The case is Briana Siegal v. Geico Casualty Co. et al., case number 1:20-cv-04306, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
--Editing by Janice Carter Brown.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
