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
We may now let this thread die a peaceful death.
Here's an interesting angle. What happens if you leave the keys in
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.
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.
Surely you understand that difference.
One of the key parts of auto insurance is it
protects me if someone steals my car and runs over a nun. Or if
my nephew, who happens to be visiting, decides to take it out one
night without my permission and runs over a nun. My policy covers a
rental car if someone steals it and kills a nun. It would seem to
that it would be one hell of a hole if they did not cover me if that
nephew who was traveling with me decided to take the car out while I
was having breakfast, without me knowing and without being on the
contract and kills a nun. If you follow your theory on that one,
the insurance company can walk away from it,
you better list all the people traveling with you as drivers. And
will be a problem when you get to the 14 year old that doesn't have
a drivers license.
That was the point.
Protects you from what? Did you run over the nun? How are you liable for
anything that happens after someone steals your car?
Stolen without permission from:
Q : What Happens If Someone is Killed or Seriously Injured by the Driver of
a Stolen Vehicle?
A: Drivers of stolen vehicles have less regard for the safety of their
fellow citizens than other drivers. They often run stop signs and red
lights at a high rate of speed, thereby putting other people at risk. When
an accident occurs, the vehicle they were driving is not covered by an
insurance policy, because the driver was driving without permission of the
owner. It is unlikely the driver of the stolen vehicle has any other
insurance policy available to him. Therefore, the injured parties must
look to their own insurance for compensation.
See the same type of answer (actual multiple answers) here:
Note the line in the paragraph I quoted that says:
"When an accident occurs, the vehicle they were driving is not covered by
an insurance policy, because the driver was driving without permission of
the owner. "
This takes me back to what I have said numerous times. I do not own the
rental vehicle. If I let my son operate the vehicle without them being
listed, he would be driving the vehicle without the permission of the
owner, therefore, not covered by my policy.
Go back to the example I first gave when I brought
this up. I said suppose you stopped at the 711 for
coffee, left the keys in the car, and the car is stolen.
Under that scenario, you are potentially liable because
your negligence contributed to what happened. Or
suppose even worse, you left the car running while
getting that coffee. In those cases, I can see the
nun suing you and winning. Those cases are
different than the car being stolen when parked
locked on the street.
And it's my understanding that MY policy would cover
me for that 711 example.
But from your own report, your insurance company
never said those words. They gave you some
cryptic answer that essentially said yes, no, maybe.
You interpreted that as them "protecting" you.
Protecting you from them apparently. But I would
interpret that answer as the insurance company
simply not wanting to get involved in getting you
into OTHER potential legal trouble.
What you asked them was if it's OK to cheat the rental car
company out of the additional fee they are entitled
to if you have others drive the car. Would you
expect any insurance company to just say
"Why yes sir, it's perfectly OK with us for you
to go ahead and cheat that rental company
and not list those drivers?"
At the same time, the insurance company knows
there are other bad things that can happen to
it's policy holder, due to doing that. Legal problems
like the car being pulled over for a traffic stop,
driver isn't on rental contract, police can't verify
who they are, and impound the vehicle. I would
think that is what the insurance company is
trying to protect you from.
Left the keys available to the nephew, didn't properly
secure the car, knowing the nephew was a little urchant
with a penchant for getting into trouble are some
examples of what I could have done that would leave
me open for liability.
Yes, the facts are that you can be sued and plaintiffs
can win under the scenarios I gave you. And if your
policy didn't cover these, it would be a potential
serious hole in the policy. But I say my policy does
cover me for these scenarios.
And again, if you think your policy does not, then
you're open to taking the hit personally in the
above scenarios. We could go on to expand
this to the rental car, but unless you agree with
the above scenarios, it's pointless.
What a crock, but I guess the rental companies have
to dream up something to try to force you to add additional drivers.
If it's a "crime" they would have to
report it to the police. If they are truthful and report
the actual facts, there is no way any police dept is going
to consider that a "stolen" car and pursue charges.
There must be plenty of instances of folks letting someone else drive
that was not "authorized" that
got into an accident. How you would find them so
you could see what happens, I don't know.
My best guess is that if you are NOT relying on the
car company for either liability insurance or collision
insurance and you have a policy that covers your
family for any cars they drive, that it's not going to
matter. except in some possibly extreme cases.
For example, if the driver not on the contract kills
a bus load of nuns, it exceeds your policy limit,
they sue the rental company and you, the rental
company might be off the hook. But then I would
think they are pretty much off the hook anyway,
unless they committed some negligence in relation
to what they did.
Now if you took out insurance with the rental company
and then allowed someone not on the contract to drive,
I would expect they may say the insurance does not
cover that driver and loss.
I'll have to spend a little more time reading the rental contract, but
I did find this in their FAQ:
"Additional driver not signed on contract.
What if I just allow them to drive without adding them on the
Failure to add someone on the contract could result in the car being
impounded if stopped by the police."
If it *could* result in being impounded, then the police would need a
reason (and a law?) allowing them to impound it, wouldn't they?
As I said in my response to Oren, the Ins Co did hint at a "legal
issue" with coverage of un-authorized drivers but didn't go into the
details. However, the rental agent mentioned the "stolen car" status
without knowing what my Ins Co had told me.
I look at it like this, at least at this point:
1 - There has to be some reason behind the Ins Co saying "the policy
would cover any driver but a "legal issue" might prevent coverage"
2 - The rental agent did toss out a situation that supposedly changes
the legal status of the vehicle.
Therefore, maybe the two statements are indeed connected.
However, I will point out once again that the rental agent did in fact
say he has not heard of it actually happening in a long time, but that
it *could* happen, in a worst case scenario.
They could impound it on the SUSPICION of it being
stolen because the driver can't produce documents
showing they are authorized to be driving it. That's
a lot different than the rental car company declaring it
to be "stolen" after an accident and you telling them
that it was not stolen, just your son driving it.
I'd say the reason are they can't forsee all the possible
circumstances, you're asking a legal question of some
phone person that could be in India, these companies
prefer to give vague answers, and the more you believe
it's dangerous to not name additional drivers the more
$$ they make.
How does my Ins Co make any money based on my believe that it's
dangerous to not name additional drivers?
They are not even a party to the rental situation unless there's a
In fact, they'll never make money on the transaction, they'll only pay
it out if there's a covered incident. Further, it would actually
behoove them to convince me *not* to list the drivers on the off
chance that they could avoid paying a claim because the driver wasn't
I was co-mingling the reasons for the rental company
and your insurance company. You said you got
answers from both of them and neither was clear.
So, when I wrote the above, I was thinking of both
of them. The rental company does have the incentive
to get you to pay for the additional drivers as it's
money that flows right to the bottom line.
Well, I think that's probably an overstatement of it becoming a "stolen
vehicle" but undoubtedly in worst-case scenario their lawyer legal
begals will be looking for any out they can dream up (and I wouldn't put
a whole lot of trust that my insurance company would be just
volunteering to go to bat for me, either) to minimize their cash
So, the last part is always true--just how much risk do you feel like
taking on to save another couple-hundred bucks? Of course, "accidents
never happen to me" (until they do)...and the world is full of cases
where somebody has gotten bit seriously. OTOH, there are a whole lot
more somebodies who did something like that and got away with it
unscathed..."no good deed goes unpunished" may have play here even if
the "punishment" is simply writing a bigger check. :)
I agree. This is a question of whther the additional cost is benefit
enough for the rare case where you need it. I envision 2 scenarios for
needing the extra drivers covered. One, you're making a long trip and
would like to share the driving duties. Two, each of you four would like
to "borrow" the car for your own individual purpose on your vacation,
without necessarily all of you as passengers. In the former case, if
something went wrong, you could claim feeling sick, and not fully up to
driving, and you (plural) needed to get from point A to point B that day.
"Force majeure". In the latter case, I'd make sure to get all the
insurance you can.
It really is just for the 15 hour drive to and from our destination.
Once we're there, I don't see a need for multiple drivers, especially
for the cost.
I did find out this additional piece of information:
I can add drivers at any time just by stopping by a rental office, but
once they are added, I can't take them off until the contract end
In other words, I can't put them on for the trip down, take them off
for the week and then add them on for the trip back.
I can however, just add them on for the trip back if I'm totally
exhuasted from a week of fun and sun.
I'm still working on some other discount codes to reduce the overall
cost, so we'll see what happens.
I hope you are not considering doing this the wrong way. It could be
premeditated insurance fraud now. And there is always a chance
something can go wrong, you'll be bankrupt after trying to save a couple
If the kids want to drive, make them pay the extra cost.
How did you get that from "I'm still working on some other discount
codes to reduce the overall cost"?
Discount codes are either offered/accepted by the rental company or
How could " working on some other discount codes" be construed as
"doing this the wrong way"?
Just reading the other stuff you wrote, I was thinking you were actually
going to risk it. I take a lot of risks, but not when it might cost
tens of thousands of dollars to clean up for something I could avoid.
hmm...I just reread everything I wrote and I can't find anything that
seems to indicate that I'm planning to risk it.
In fact, as I read it, I'd lean towards thinking that I was believing
the that whole "stolen car" thing could be _possible_ and therefore
not worth the risk.
Of course, that's how I read it, maybe because I wrote it.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.