As you said, your personal car insurance will cover the rental car...but beware, most of us have a pretty high deducible on our personal auto insurance policies and if we get a scratch on our personal car, we don't file a claim and we don't care.
But... if you get a SCRATCH on the rental car, they DO CARE and the cost to repair can be $300 and fall under the deductible, so YOU are on the hook for it.
However, many credit cards, such as Visa, will pick up the tab for this. Check your credit card rules, otherwise get the CDW.
and the way they make bumpers these days, all you have to do is tap the bumper and it will have a $300 scratch.
It's still a breech of contract, plain and simple. The fact that the police MIGHT impound the car because the unlisted driver might not be able to prove that they are authorized to drive the car, doesn't change that. From a practical matter, I seriously doubt if the car was rented to Derby and the cops find his son driving it that they are going to waste their time on this nonsense.
And next, when a contract is breeched, it doesn't suddenly become a no-mans wilderness. The procedure is simple. If the party that believes they were damaged by the breech wants to pursue it, they can sue. Then they have to prove:
A - The contract was breeched by the other party.
B - Damages.
I'm still waiting to hear in all this what the damages to the rental company are specifc to Derby allowing an unlisted driver to use the car. If he returns the car without any problems, no damages. He wrecks the car himself, he and/or his insurance company are responsible. The unlisted driver wrecks the car, Derby and/or his insurance company and the unlised driver are responsible. Same thing.
The only "damages" here I can see are the insurance company is out the additional fee they were entitled to for the additional driver. If they want to go after Derby for $25, that is their case. BFD.
Derby told you in the original post that his insurance company told him he is in fact covered if he allows an unlisted driver to use the car. You claimed he could not have such a policy and that such a policy is prohibitively expensive. Derby reaffirmed that he does in fact have that coverage. Now, who should we believe? Derby who talked to his insurance company, or you?
As for it being a crime, I think you'd have a hell of a time getting a prosecutor to pursue this nonsense. And an almost impossible job getting a conviction. It might be theoretically possible, but at the end of the day, the only "crime" here is that the rental car company did not get their additonal small fee of a few bucks a day for adding the driver. It's not like someone going over to a relatives house at night and taking their car on a joyride for a week. THAT is what unauthorized use laws are there for.
Yes, that's true. And so far, despite all the attempts to make this into something worse, that's the only POSSIBLE downside I see. And if the cops pull over son Little Derby in that rental, he has the rental contract that shows it was rented to Big Daddy Derby, I submit there ain't a cop in a thousand miles that's gonna waste his time on this horse shit. You remind me of Barney Fife.
So say you have a $500 deductible. Let's say your credit card doesn't offer protection. You think it's a good idea to pay the outrageous CDW every time you rent a car, just on the chance that one day you MIGHT be out $500?
My insurance says it covers me for any car I'm driving. It does not say I have to be listed as a driver on a rental contract. Good to know, if I steal your car tonight, at least I'm covered.
t I authorize to drive either of those vehicles. It extends to coverage of = rental vehicles. Since it extends to rental vehicles, it automatically exte= nds to any driver that I authorize to drive the rental.
e vehicle per the rental contract.
they tell me that there may be legal problems with the coverage should an u= nauthorized driver get in an accident.
e even though any driver that I authorize to drive any covered vehicle woul= d be covered, I may not have the right to authorize drivers to drive the re= ntal. If only the rental company can authorize additional operators, then t= he Ins Co could refuse to cover a driver that is not listed on the contract= .
eason why the Ins Co says to make sure that all drivers are listed on the c= ontract. It can't be monetary because not only don't they make any money wh= en the drivers are listed, they are actually putting themselves "at risk" s= ince they are telling me to do something that could end up costing them mon= ey.
er, by making sure that I don't get myself in trouble from a legal non-cove= rage perspective.
Oh, really? Where is that written in the law? Answer, it's not. It might be written in an insurance policy, but since you don't have Derby's policy, how the hell would you know? Oh, I know, as usual, you know everything. And that which you're not sure of, well you just make up.
I'd say you're the one disconnected here.
You know this for a fact right? You don't even know who the insurance company Derby has is. How could you know what the policy does or does not say?
BS. I've rented cars for decades. And not one of them asked me for proof of insurance or even who my insurance company is. They only ask if you want THEIR additional insurance. They even rent cars to folks who don't own a car themselves, so of course they don't have car insurance. Think people living in NYC who rent cars for a weekend trip.
That's pure BS. I can throw the rental agreement out the window and it doesn't make the use "unauthorized". Why do you make this stuff up?
Again, not having the document doesn't make the car unregistered or uninsured. It is registered with the DMV in the state that issued the plates. It is insured, by your own personal auto policy and by insurance from the rental company. The MOST they might have here is some minor ticket for not having proper documents.
And as usual, now we're off into space, talking about fleet policies. Does Derby have a fleet?
Now, hold on T, let's make we all understand what my Ins Co told me.
As I said in my OP and repeated a few times in various posts:
From an insurance policy perspective, I and all drivers I authorize to drive my covered vehicles are covered. However, from a *legal* perspective there may be situations in which such coverage could be denied.
While I hate to agree with Evan, I believe that he is saying more or less the same thing I said earlier:
I have no authority to authorize additional drivers on a rental vehicle. All that I have is the option of asking the rental agency to list them as Additional Authorized Operators. If the rental agency deems them worthy, then they - the rental agency - will authorize them. At that point my policy will cover them.
I can't say for sure, but that may be the legal loophole that the Ins Co rep hinted at.
In any case it really doesn't matter since I'm going to list any and all drivers that I expect will drive the vehicle during the rental period.
It's entirely possible I mis-read it. I got the feeling you were possibly not going to list them to save a few hundred bucks, and was feeling the group out for what might happen.
Perhaps we should all keep the bigger picture in mind:
An accident.
It seems a waste of time to discuss the "monetary damages" of the fee that didn't get paid if an operator isn't listed.
It seems a waste of time to discuss the issue of an unlisted operator gets pulled over by the police and the car getting impounded. Even on the off chance that that happens, I don't see the monetary consequences being substantial.
The only real monetary issue that matters is whether an Ins Co would pay for damages if that unlisted operator is involved in an accident.
Since my Ins Co has said that there might be legal issues that would prevent them from covering an unlisted operator it's not worth trying to save a few hundred on the rental contract by not listing all drivers.
Once again, I keep going back to this:
My Ins Co makes no money if I list the drivers or not. In fact, it will cost them money if a listed operator is involved in an accident. So why would they tell me to make sure I list all operators?
Since they don't make any money by telling me to list all Operators, but may indeed have to pay out, the only reasonable conclusion is that there is in fact a legal way for them to get out of paying for the accident and they are trying to protect me, their customer, from a huge debt.
I agree, but someone else brought up the issue of damages to the rental car company by you not listing the other drivers. And being out that money is the only damage I can see. That was why I went there.
I agree. But it is an example of where the unlisted driver and you could wind up with some additional expenses, if the car got pulled over and impounded.
I agree.
But from what you have told us the insurance company said, they didn't say that. They said "All I can say is that from a policy perspective they would be covered, but from a legal perspective they might not be."
Which isn't clear at all. If the insurance company believes they might not be covered then you would expect them to say "They might not be covered", period. And the freaking insurance company should know as this must come up frequently. It's not some highly improbable hypothetical.
Did the actually say those words? And if they did, the reasons could be that they don't want to encourage you to cheat the rental car company. And they know that like we've discussed here, there are other possibilities where you might be out time, money etc, ie that traffic stop scenario.
I don't understand that reasoning. If they are indeed interested in protecting you, all they have to do is cover the other driver, whether listed or not. Instead they gave you some jumbled up crap. Probably because whoever you got to doesn't know the real answer. And surely they do because this has to happen all the time.
The right thing in my book would be to cover you regardless of whether you listed them or not, provided they are otherwise a licensed driver. I mean, suppose at the counter the rental person forgets to ask about additional drivers? What happens then if you later let someone otherwise authorized drive the car and they kill a nun? Your insurance company just says, too bad? At the same time, insurance companies will pay out if a listed driver gets drunk, goes 90mph and kills the nun? MAkes no sense to me.
Actually, all I need to do is pay the rental agency the AAO fees and list the drivers on the contract.
As soon as we (my family and l) decide how many drivers we'll want balanced against the cost, that's what I'm going to do. That way at least I'll know that all operators are authorized by the rental agency and covered by my insurance.
Here's an interesting angle. What happens if you leave the keys in the ignition of a rental car at the 711 while getting a coffee. A crook steals it, causes $50k in damages to the rental car and another car they hit.. Is you insurance company on the hook for that one? I say yes.
Now, suppose you don't add any drivers when you rent the car because you think no one else will be driving the car. While you are having breakfast, junior takes the keys to the car and goes out and has the same accident. Is your insurance company on the hook for that one? I say yes.
Now if you agree that they are on the hook for this last example, then let's say you don't add junior as a listed driver, even though you know that he will drive it. It would be very difficult for the insurance company to prove you knew about it, participated in it, etc. Junior just says "Gee, I just assumed I could use it and it would be OK".
Now Evan will tell you that all hell is gonna rain down on junior, That he's committed a serious crime, the unauthorized used of a car. I say it's highly doubtful he's committed a crime. And even if it's possible under some law, there ain't a prosecutor in a thousand miles that would waste his time on this nonsense.
So, if you feel confident that the insurance company will cover you if junior uses the car without your knowing, without your approval, then you may have your practical answer.
The reasoning is quite easy to understand, at least to me.
You are speculating that the person I talked to, a person my question was escalated to when the 1st level customer service rep didn't know that answer, also didn't know the answer.
I condensed a much longer conversation down to just few lines in my OP. Since I spend a lot of time dealing with customer service departments from many, many companies, including my own, I'm pretty good at being able to tell when the rep is making stuff up as they go along vs. when they actually know what they are talking about.
I choose to speculate that she actually did know the answer to my question and that it is this: She knows that in certain situations the lawyers for the Ins Co can step in and tell the claims department to deny the claim. Since, as you say, this happens all the time, then she may very well be aware that in certain situations unlisted operators of rental vehicles are denied coverage. However, unless it was an actual case where all the details are known as opposed to a very simple hypothetical situation (e.g. No other details were discussed other than an unlisted operator being involved in an accident) she can't say with 100% certainty that my simple hypothetical situation would be covered or not.
So she does the right thing and advices me to have all operators listed. This advice gives me a much higher chance of every incident being covered and less chance of the lawyers overriding the claims department due to an unauthorized operator.
Look, everything here is hypothetical and unless we're all sitting around a table with knowledgeable representatives from the Ins Co and rental agency, and probably a few lawyers too, discussing the exact details of a specific incident, we'll never resolve these questions.
The easiest and safest thing for me to do is to simply list and pay for any and all operators that might be reasonably expected to operate the vehicle while under contract.
Well then, I'd find another insurance company. Because if they are going to not cover a claim when someone uses your car without your permission, then you're wide open to all kinds of possibilities.
How you went from a discussion about my Ins Co saying an unlisted driver of a rental vehicle might not be covered to thinking that they won't cover someone driving *my* car is beyond me.
A rental vehicle is not *my* car. That's one of the major discussion points of this thread and why the rules differ. I don't have to get anyone's permission to let anyone drive *my* car but I do need to get the rental agency's permission to let anyone but me drive the rental.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.