Parents in Michigan say Geico denied their accident claim because they hadn’t listed their small children on the policy. Kara Vogel and Carson Howatt from Chelsea had an accident on Christmas Eve while driving with their 18-month-old girl and three-month-old boy. Howatt told reporters that the accident was minor and nobody got hurt.
According to their interview with other news outlets recently, Mrs. Vogel explained that they were navigating a traffic circle when someone approached from the right, failed to stop, and smashed into the front of their vehicle. Fixing the car is expected to cost somewhere in the range of $5,000 to $15,000. Vogel expressed to The Independent that she really wants other parents to learn from what they went through so they don’t face the same situation.
A car crash with an unexpected outcome
The parents stated that the company informed them coverage was denied because the kids weren’t on the paperwork. The family had been insuring the vehicle with Geico for six months, starting back before their son was born.
Speaking to Click On Detroit, Howatt recalled the adjuster asking if he was the father and if the children lived in his house. He noted that the question didn’t raise any red flags, so he simply confirmed that they are his children living with him, and while they were strapped in during the collision, nobody was injured.
However, Howatt acknowledged signing a document that claimed he and his wife were the only people living in the house. Vogel explained that they never imagined the incident would wreck their finances, especially since the crash seemed minor enough that the airbags didn’t even deploy.
Geico’s response
Geico clarified to Click On Detroit that based on Michigan statutes, every person living in a home must be named on the auto insurance, no matter how old they are. The state overhauled its no-fault insurance system back in 2019, which changed the rules regarding Personal Injury Protection.
Everything eventually got sorted out, and the family confirmed they won’t need to use their own money for repairs. However, they noted that Geico insisted they officially add the kids to their coverage moving forward. Vogel expressed to The Independent that her family feels a huge sense of relief now that the situation is settled.
She explained that her son, who is now four months old, was born with a heart condition and is scheduled for his second operation in a couple of weeks. Vogel said she is happy the insurance drama is over, allowing them to concentrate on the family and get ready for what is coming next without worrying about the repair bill.
Why would insurance companies want to know your children’s age?
While insurers frequently cite state statutes—such as Michigan’s “household resident” laws—as the primary legal reason for collecting data on infants and toddlersc has a simpler (and more profit-driven) motivation: saving the date in the distant future for automatic premium hikes.
By cataloging children from birth, insurance algorithms can trigger immediate rate increases the moment a child reaches legal driving age… often without verifying if the teenager is actually driving. It doesn’t matter if the child lives in a walkable city, takes extracurriculars, has disability issues that render controlling a car wheel impossible, or simply has no interest in driving the family car; the insurance company takes for granted the child has gotten their driving license right as their blow their “sweet sixteen” birthday cake candles, and have started using the family car weekly.
Policyholders describe this as a “guilty until proven innocent” billing model. As noted in recent complaints, parents often face aggressive “opt-out” tactics where premiums spike the month a child turns 16 or 18.
For insurers, a teenager in the household represents an inevitable statistical risk. By demanding early data, they shift the administrative burden onto the customer, charging for the potential that a child might drive until the parents prove otherwise—like Minority Report.