Geico is suing a Michigan woman for a car crash that she didn’t cause. Why? Because she didn’t list her 12-year-old daughter, who does not drive, on her car insurance policy.

Cari McCaskill has had her car insurance with Geico since 2014. So, when a car crashed into her while taking her 12-year-old daughter and her daughter’s friend to pick up food, she figured she would file a claim and be done with it. Little did she know.

“The car came around, going about 40 or 50, trying to get around traffic and t-boned us,” McCaskill told Click on Detroit. “The police report listed my child and her friend in the car. I had to list that on the claim. The process went as it normally does.”

The accident totaled her car, with damage totaling almost $25,000. Still, she had insurance through Geico, so she just waited for her claim to process. She waited, and waited, and waited.

Several weeks passed, and McCaskill still hadn’t heard from Geico about her claim. Then she tried to log in to the Geico app to check on it, and it wouldn’t let her.

Shortly thereafter, she got an email from Geico. They said they had reviewed the claim and that they would not pay it. Not only that, but Geico was canceling her policy, retroactive to the last renewal date.

The insurance company said they were taking these actions because she hadn’t listed her then-12-year-old daughter on the personal injury protection attestation.

Why did Geico sue the woman?

When her daughter’s friend went to the doctor for a checkup, Geico asked the girl’s mother whether she was receiving care and, if so, where. After that, Geico served McCaskill and the doctor’s office with papers.

Just one problem, or, well, another problem, the doctor’s office isn’t trying to get Geico to pay for anything. The doctor’s office didn’t file an answer to the complaint, according to McCaskill’s attorney Chris Camper.

“Making her basically feel as though she’s done something wrong and that she may be stuck with a $25,000 or $26,000 lease,” Camper said.

“It kind of felt like being thrown away,” McCaskill said. “I get it’s a company, but I did my part.”

Geico, in response to questions about the case, told Click on Detroit, “As we stated last week: ‘Geico complies with all state insurance regulations regarding claims and coverage.’ We are unable to comment on pending litigation.”

Who is in the wrong in this case?

According to a recent Moneywise article on Yahoo Finance, some states require you to list all household members, even those who do not drive, on your car insurance policy.

In Michigan, the law states that “classifications and territorial base rates used by an insurer in this state with respect to automobile insurance” must be applied in accordance with certain requirements, including “number of dependents of income earners insured under the policy.”

“The law, then, appears to leave room for discretion as to whether the insurance company has to cover a collision, as there’s no age requirement for dependents listed in the policy. It also creates a potentially expensive situation for the many drivers who might assume that only those dependents of driving age need be included in their policy.”

In addition, Click on Detroit reported that an AAA representative stated that, under state law, everyone must be listed, including infants. They also spoke to the Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services. who said, “The consequences to consumers for not disclosing required information can vary, depending on the specific facts of the case.”

Interestingly, in an unrelated case, a Detroit recntly woman recently woke up to find her Dodge stolen. Her insurance company, CURE Insurance, refused to cover the loss. The reason? She failed to list “household members” who had long since moved out of her home. She later recovered the vehicle, but the damage had totaled it, with damage estimates of $22,724. When she lawyered up, CURE canceled her policy.