This HTML5 document contains 9 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
n7http://www.openvoc.eu/poi#
schemahttp://schema.org/
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
n2http://data.yelp.com/Review/id/
n5http://data.yelp.com/Business/id/
revhttp://purl.org/stuff/rev#
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
n6http://data.yelp.com/User/id/

Statements

Subject Item
n2:Yi_w2wp2e-wFdW98tSfKUQ
rdf:type
rev:Review
schema:dateCreated
2018-03-06T00:00:00
schema:itemReviewed
n5:XGfQGUj1GX7BfuOlpjOfDA
n7:funnyReviews
0
rev:rating
1
n7:usefulReviews
1
rev:text
Unfortunately, the shop that I run works with Geico on a regular basis and during a large repair we did, Geico issued one of several checks for that repair in the amount of $1,605.89. The check cleared the bank, and then several days after, due to Geico trying to bury tow charges so they would not show up on the estimate (fraud on Geico's part), Geico put a reverse payments on the check and had it taken out of our account. Basically the Geico adjuster got confused because his numbers didn't match . After several days of trying to get Geico to reissue the check, they finally did - for the original amount . Of course, our bank charged my shop a fee due to the check not clearing or being cancelled. Geico adjuster "D" stated in an email he will make sure to reimburse the shop the bank fees. This never happened. After he refused to make this right, I contacted his supervisor by email, voicemail, text messaging. His supervisor Ms. "T" has completely ignored the situation. Geico continues on every claim that is at our shop, to ignore best business practices and seems to embrace unethical practices.
n7:coolReviews
0
rev:reviewer
n6:jpkpkEGf4Mdx2478d12_wA