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 not.
How could " working on some other discount codes" be construed as "doing this the wrong way"?
I think that's best for your wallet and peace of mind.
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.
That's nuts. Forget about adding AAOs.
No, it doesn't, and that doesn't make a lick of sense. If the contract is voided you'd be off the hook for the rental fee.
If a contract may simply be declared void by one party I've wasted a lot of money on lawyers.
Since there is no crime... -----
- gpsman
So what? It's a breech of contract, which is a civil matter. Last time I checked, just because someone breeches a contract does not give the police the right to impound a vehicle. If that were the case, the cops would be doing all the work for finance companies when the people who finance a car fail to make payments.
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.
What monetary loss? The $25 extra for the additional driver? I agree with what you're saying though. I don't see the whole stolen car nonsense going anywhere.
I don't even see the whole contract being voided. That wouldn't make sense for either party. Certain parts of it might be void.
You don't actually rent cars, do you? It's general practice for rental companies to charge extra for additional drivers. The majors, Hertx, Avis, Enterprise all do it.
If you have "non owned vehicle coverage" from your insurer, you don't need to buy insurance from the rental company - and if your coverage covers all of your drivers as named insured on YOUR vehicles, they are all covered on the "non owned" as well.
Good luck to the insurance company claiming it is a "stolen vehicle" unless it is not returned at the end of the rental agreement - whether in 1 piece or 10.
In Ontario anyway. No idea how those things work in Yankee-Land
That is correct, if you, the contract holder, is not in the car. The police have no way of knowing the car is not stolen and the driver is authorized to use it, insured or not. The contract states Bob is the authorized driver. Tom, however has the car, but no evidence the rental company is allowing his to drive it. Quick call to the rental company confirms Bob is the driver and they have no idea who Tom is.
It may turn out ok, but can be a PITA until you do.
If that person is in an accident, insurance coverage is OK, assuming usual terms and they are a policy holder, etc. .
That's a good point and an important one. Derby should make sure his policy actually covers the other drivers in his family. I know for example that a son in my household would be covered while driving MY insured car. But I have no idea if they would be covered if they were driving a car I rented.
This is
That would seem to depend only on the policy Derby has and what it covers. If it covers his son while driving a car Derby rents in NJ, I don't see it changing if Derby rents a car in MD.
In doubt the laws for unauthorized use would apply and I've never heard of any such crazy case being brought.
Not covered by what? His own insurance company? His own insurance company gave him an answer that was not a clear "no coverage", so how could you know what they will or will not cover? Suppose I breech the terms of the rental agreement by smoking in the car. Does that give my insurance company the right to deny a claim?
What would such a claim for violation even be?
=A0>Expect
There isn't a schedule of allowable damages by state. In a contracts case it's up to the plaintiff to PROVE their damages from the breech. And I don't see the rental company having any damages period. Derby MIGHT be responsible himself for the damages his son causes to someone he hits if his insurance company denies the claim. But what loss exactly does the rental company have?
Derby apparently believes he does. Perhaps he can tell us more.
Daughter's boyfriend got a call 4 montha ago from the local Law Enforcement Agency - "do you own a 2005 Chrysler 300?" He said yes. They asked where it was. He said on the driveway. They said "You better check". It wasn't there. It was found in an adjoining city, wrecked and burning. He had both sets of keys
He had made the mistake of dealing with a BANK instead of an insurance company for his insurance. He had full coverage, babied the car - it was like brand new- and they are still dragging their feet about paying. They have both police departments chasing their tails investigating - sounds like they are trying to prove he HAD it stolen, or wrecked and burned it himself. At any rate, they are trying REAL HARD to get out of paying for the loss!!!
Meanwhile he's still making car payments (different bank than the company insuring it) and he's driving my wife's old car which we were going to scrap when we bought her latest one - a few weeks after his loss. He paid for renewing the plates, and is covering our out of pocket insurance costs - my daughter being an insurance broker we made sure he is on as the primary driver.
He'll deal with a broker next time!!!
DerbyDad03 wrote in news:8b1f22c9-a3b9-4ef9-9b02- snipped-for-privacy@a16g2000vby.googlegroups.com:
The straight answer is, you're screwed. Every time I've ever rented a car or truck, the contract has had some language to the effect that lessee agrees not to allow anyone other than persons listed on the rental contract to operate the vehicle. You breach that contract if you permit that -- and I'll bet that your auto insurance provides coverage on a rental car only if you're in compliance with the rental contract.
or truck, the
low anyone other
each that contract if
e on a rental car only
His own insurance company told him he would still be covered. It seems kind of extreme and odd to me that the same insurance company that will pay off on a claim when you drive your car 90 MPH when you're drunk, will suddenly deny a claim they otherwise would have paid just because you did not list a driver on a contract with a rental company.
Any breech does not void a contract, release the parties or mean that the other party can rain hell down on you. It just means that the party that believes they were wronged has to PROVE what harm the breech did to them and what they are out. For starters, it has to be a MATERIAL breech. And again, it's hard for me to see how simply not listing the other driver on a contract with a rental company rises to that level. What material difference would it have made to your own insurance company whether the driver was on the rental contract or not?
Keep in mind who you are responding to. That's Evan that posted that.
My policy, which is nothing special and certainly not expensive, covers exa= ctly what I said it covers in my OP.
It covers the 2 vehicles listed on the policy. It covers any driver that I = authorize to drive either of those vehicles. It extends to coverage of rent= al vehicles. Since it extends to rental vehicles, it automatically extends = to any driver that I authorize to drive the rental.
I called my Ins Co and verified that.
At issue is the status of operators that are not authorized to drive the ve= hicle per the rental contract.
I have no problem believing both the Ins Co and the rental agency when they= tell me that there may be legal problems with the coverage should an unaut= horized driver get in an accident.
I can certainly see a "loophole", or whatever you want to call it, where ev= en though any driver that I authorize to drive any covered vehicle would be= covered, I may not have the right to authorize drivers to drive the rental= . If only the rental company can authorize additional operators, then the I= ns Co could refuse to cover a driver that is not listed on the contract.=20
Maybe the car wouldn't be considered stolen, but there is obviously a reaso= n why the Ins Co says to make sure that all drivers are listed on the contr= act. It can't be monetary because not only don't they make any money when t= he drivers are listed, they are actually putting themselves "at risk" since= they are telling me to do something that could end up costing them money.
My only assumption is that they really want to protect me, their customer, = by making sure that I don't get myself in trouble from a legal non-coverage= perspective.
The suit filed against the car company by the relatives of the 13 illegal Mexicans who died when the station wagon they were in exploded after being tapped by the rental car driver. Then there is the mental anguish suffered by five people who witnessed the accident as they were standing on the curb waiting for the light to change. They saw legs and entrails and bones and hair and livers and sinews and other stuff flying through the air. They have not yet brought suit, or even contacted a lawyer, inasmuch as they have been under heavy sedation for the last four months.
Plus repairing the scratch on the left rear fender of the station wagon. That particular part of the car was found about thirty feet from the explosion, on the window ledge of a second floor apartment. Fortunately, the apartment owner's cat, who was sunning himself at the time just inside the window, suffered no physical injury, but has severe psychological problems from the event. The cat, regrettably, and unlike the five bystanders, can probably not expect any monetary relief no matter whom is eventually found culpable.
You're right. Contracts such as this almost always contain a severability clause.
Find a different car rental and ask the same question. I never heard of this in the past tho I haven't rented a car lately. I think you are allowed to authorize a person to drive the car even if they aren't listed as a main driver. Think of it this way.... suppose you were injured badly and could not drive, then someone might have to drive your rental car with you in it, to the hospital.
There's no real point in that. My corporate discount is with the rental agency I'm dealing with and is by far the best deal available to me.
Any cost associated with additional drivers wouldn't make me change companies because the overall discount is substantial.
I don't know what you mean by "a main driver".
If you mean the person who signed the rental contract, then that will be me.
If I want other people to operate the vehicle, I have to bring those people to the rental agency, where they will have to show a valid driver's license and credit card. They will then be known as Additional Authorized Operators by this company.
That doesn't make it "legal" from a rental agency or insurance company perspective. If I was badly injured and the only person who could drive me to the hospital was a 13 year old, whether is was my car or a rental, it still wouldn't be legal for them to drive.
If they are not listed on the contract, they are not authorized to drive the car even if I, as the person who signed the contract, say that they are.
Come on... I meant a person who had a driver's license. I think you have some pre-notions or phobias here but if you don't want to talk to another car agency, then either go to a lawyer or no need to talk about it because you have your mind made up.
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.