From KCRA (Sacramento, CA):
Rental car loophole in California could stick you with car repair bill
Drivers may not have be covered in crashes with rental carsQuoteCalifornians who were involved in crashes with drivers of rental cars found they don't have the insurance coverage they expected.
Christine Frost had just moved from Sacramento to Santa Barbara. She was taking her daughter Ella to school when, before she knew it, her car was rear-ended.
With damage to her bumper, Frost asked the two men for their information and insurance so she could get her car repaired.
The driver, a man from Jamaica, was in a car with Idaho plates that was rented from Avis Rent-A-Car.
FULL ARTICLE HERE (http://markholtz.info/1g4)
QuoteFrost said Avis wouldn't tell her who rented the car or even if they had insurance, leaving her stuck with the repair bill.
Could she not file suit against John Doe and then subpoena the records from Avis? Then again, that would probably be more expensive than the damage, considering it's under the amount of her deductible.
Quote from: articleFrost had uninsured motorist coverage -- which might normally pay for the damage -- but because the repairs didn't amount to more than her deductible, Frost was stuck paying the tab.
Uh, isn't that the case just about anywhere? If the damage is less than the deductible, then you're on the hook for it? Otherwise auto insurance would have been bankrupted long ago due to excessive door-ding and rock-chip litigation.
I can see it now...
"Have you been the victim of a careless parking incident?
...Took a gravel road due to construction?
If so, call the Law Office of Peint and Bodie today!"Did your insurance agency brush you off? We say YES to de minimis claims!...so and forth. Let the billboards begin.
"Avis said, blah, blah, blah..." Yeah, and? Al Capone said he was a used furniture salesman.
First, you SUE the owner of the car. Avis. Then you file discovery for every piece of paper they have, and get the name of the renter, and you sue him too, along with his buddy the driver. Little thing called court. In court they really don't care too much what "Avis said".
But, yes, everybody should have un and under insured coverage.
Quote"It's very important that you have uninsured motorist coverage because, apparently, there's a lot of people that don't have insurance," Frost said. "If you have an accident where there's a severe property damage or physical damage to you, you could be in a huge hole."
Uh, isn't this why you have insurance in the first place? That's also why you determine the policy AND THE DEDUCTIBLE that you can live with. If you want to save a few bucks by taking a $2,000 deductible, it'll leave you in a huge hole. Pay a few more bucks for a $250 deductible, and it's more of an inconvenience when you're hit. Make sure you have a policy where your rental car is covered also while your car is being repaired.
Otherwise, the article is pretty much a big Yawn. This is why you whip out the cell phone and call the police first, not take pictures and get info first. If anything, get the tag number as soon as possible, then worry about getting the other guy's info. All of this should've been mentioned in the article, but then it puts a little blame on Ms. Innocent, not the other driver. I'm guessing that Ms. Innocent determined there wasn't much damage and told the other driver that he can just leave. *That* is why she's in the hole here. If it was a hit-and-run, the other driver would've just taken off.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 25, 2016, 09:32:16 AM
Uh, isn't this why you have insurance in the first place? That's also why you determine the policy AND THE DEDUCTIBLE that you can live with.
In a perfect world, maybe, but no, both uninsured and underinsured coverage is very important. Especially in a place like California where millions of criminals are driving around without not only any insurance, but any right to be in the country in the first place.
First, both under and un coverage are very inexpensive add ons, generally 5% of the basic coverage. . It is a lot of insurance for not much $$. While the names are similar, the coverages are very different.
The government estimates that almost 13% of motorists are uninsured. That figure is probably low. And, in most states, a hit and run is considered an uninsured situation. That means that should such a scofflaw hit you, you are on the hook for all the damages. That means not just your deductable for your body damage to your car, but any medical damages or lost work too. Anything you could sue the scofflaw for. That means that say your car is totaled. OK, you have a $500 deductable (and a "made a claim" ding on your record, with a new higher bill next time). So that is $500 and you can live with that. AND, you get hurt and miss work for 3 months. AND, you have huge medical bills (and even if you have medical insurance, in many cases it will not pay out for accidents caused by others). For a few $$ you get huge coverage.
As to underinsured coverage, almost everybody has whatever their state sets as the minimum coverage. In California that is just 15/30/5. That means $15K for medicals for any one person, $30K total for medicals to all persons; and $5K for damages to your car. FIVE K. So somebody with the minimum insurance hits you. Assuming he has no assets you can get at, his insurance company writes you a check for $5K and walks away. You are on the hook for the rest. For a few $$ (maybe 2% of the basic policy, it varies from state to state) all of that is covered. Leaving out the above discussed medial or even death posibilities.
And then there is stacking, which is an art form that good lawyers know how to do. Varies widely from state to state, but it is a good thing.
IMHO, everybody who can afford it needs both un and under coverage, and anybody with any assets in the bank needs either an unbrella policy or WAY more liability coverage than the state requires.
FWIW..... if you have a car loan, I'm am very sure that your financial institution, as lienholder, make it a requirement to hold car insurance as part of the car loan. Mine, a local credit union, also requires that your deductible not exceed $500 while they hold the loan. Gee, guess how much I make sure to keep in my savings account for a situation like this? (And, FWIW, I do not have a car loan at this time).
I can understand the woman's frustration. She probably went to the media to embarrass the car rental company into cooperating. Nice try. As the cost of legally going after the other party is probably going to cost more than her deductible, time to bite the bullet and pay the piper. Next time, call the cops when an exception like this occurs.
I posted the story because I thought it was danged interesting, and that a quirk in California's law allowed the car rental company to clam up and be non-cooperative.
Quote from: SP Cook on August 25, 2016, 10:18:29 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 25, 2016, 09:32:16 AM
Uh, isn't this why you have insurance in the first place? That's also why you determine the policy AND THE DEDUCTIBLE that you can live with.
In a perfect world, maybe, but no, both uninsured and underinsured coverage is very important. Especially in a place like California where millions of criminals are driving around without not only any insurance, but any right to be in the country in the first place.
First, both under and un coverage are very inexpensive add ons, generally 5% of the basic coverage. . It is a lot of insurance for not much $$. While the names are similar, the coverages are very different.
The government estimates that almost 13% of motorists are uninsured. That figure is probably low. And, in most states, a hit and run is considered an uninsured situation. That means that should such a scofflaw hit you, you are on the hook for all the damages. That means not just your deductable for your body damage to your car, but any medical damages or lost work too. Anything you could sue the scofflaw for. That means that say your car is totaled. OK, you have a $500 deductable (and a "made a claim" ding on your record, with a new higher bill next time). So that is $500 and you can live with that. AND, you get hurt and miss work for 3 months. AND, you have huge medical bills (and even if you have medical insurance, in many cases it will not pay out for accidents caused by others). For a few $$ you get huge coverage.
As to underinsured coverage, almost everybody has whatever their state sets as the minimum coverage. In California that is just 15/30/5. That means $15K for medicals for any one person, $30K total for medicals to all persons; and $5K for damages to your car. FIVE K. So somebody with the minimum insurance hits you. Assuming he has no assets you can get at, his insurance company writes you a check for $5K and walks away. You are on the hook for the rest. For a few $$ (maybe 2% of the basic policy, it varies from state to state) all of that is covered. Leaving out the above discussed medial or even death posibilities.
And then there is stacking, which is an art form that good lawyers know how to do. Varies widely from state to state, but it is a good thing.
IMHO, everybody who can afford it needs both un and under coverage, and anybody with any assets in the bank needs either an unbrella policy or WAY more liability coverage than the state requires.
As I live in NJ, everything except for an umbrella policy is required by law. In a way, it makes our insurance the highest, or 2nd highest in the country nearly every year. But like you said, it should be all but required anyway, should something happened. I think our limits are higher too...but even then, you're probably not going to find anyone who says carry less than 100k in insurance protection.
As far as an umbrella policy goes, I was talking about that with a friend who did auto insurance claims for many years. He came across a LOT of stuff, and there's always those "Once you think you've seen it all" claims. But one claim he never came across was someone fighting to get money out of someone's umbrella policy. Again, maybe it's something in NJ's various laws that assist with that though that makes the umbrella policies unnecessary add-ons for most people.
If Avis wanted her to go after the person who rented the car, they should have told her who that was. Their response as-is is nothing more than a more polite version of "f*** you".
Quote from: formulanone on August 25, 2016, 09:12:16 AM
Quote from: articleFrost had uninsured motorist coverage -- which might normally pay for the damage -- but because the repairs didn't amount to more than her deductible, Frost was stuck paying the tab.
Uh, isn't that the case just about anywhere? If the damage is less than the deductible, then you're on the hook for it? Otherwise auto insurance would have been bankrupted long ago due to excessive door-ding and rock-chip litigation.
Totally agree. IMO, this woman is the worst person they could have chose for this story. In her case, because the repair bill is less than her deductible, insurance isn't relevant at all.
Now, if the damage was entire rear-end + medical bills...now there's a story!
Quote from: jakeroot on August 25, 2016, 07:37:10 PM
Totally agree. IMO, this woman is the worst person they could have chose for this story. In her case, because the repair bill is less than her deductible, insurance isn't relevant at all.
Now, if the damage was entire rear-end + medical bills...now there's a story!
It's August, which is not only a non-sweeps month, but a all-reruns month as well. If it was a rear-ended with nice, visible damage plus a neck cast, they would have saved it for sweeps.
Quote from: vdeane on August 25, 2016, 06:33:37 PM
If Avis wanted her to go after the person who rented the car, they should have told her who that was.
They probably legally cannot, thanks to laws about disclosure of customers' personal information (or at least their own privacy policy in their contracts). She would have to sue John Doe and have the court subpoena the records (as Scott mentioned).
Of course, even if Avis could and did tell her who rented the car, a repair bill smaller than her insurance deductible is also going to be smaller than the cost of filing a lawsuit. This is the sort of situation where the economically sensible thing to do is eat the cost. It's already illegal to drive uninsured and yet people do it anyway. This isn't even a "loophole" so much as it is a case where someone blatantly violated at least one contract.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 25, 2016, 03:27:32 PM
As far as an umbrella policy goes, I was talking about that with a friend who did auto insurance claims for many years. He came across a LOT of stuff, and there's always those "Once you think you've seen it all" claims. But one claim he never came across was someone fighting to get money out of someone's umbrella policy. Again, maybe it's something in NJ's various laws that assist with that though that makes the umbrella policies unnecessary add-ons for most people.
An umbrella policy is insurance against losing your nest egg, really. It kicks in after every other insurance has paid off (be it auto insurance or homeowners or whatever context the accident happened in). It is very inexpensive, since it is "second dollar insuarance" only paying out in the rare occasion that a truly awful accident happened.
So this is the scenario. Say there is a truly horrid accident. Say some kid gets brain damage and has to be cared for hand and foot for life. Could be millions. And say fault is totally clear. So who caused the accident.
- Say it was a "regular joe". Regular joe's insurance is going to pay over policy limits and walk away. Now the victim's lawyer is going to look at regular joe's "attachable" assets. "Attachable" means what joe cannot hide under various bankruptcy and pension protection acts, cash you hide under the floor boards, so on. In 99 cases out of 100, victim's lawyer is going to take the policy limits and maybe just a few of joe's own $$ and go away, because, as the legal maxim goes, you cannot get blood out of a turnip. Joe can file bankruptcy and the law allows him to keep a lot of stuff and the lawyers all know that so there you go.
- But say is was not a "regular joe". Say it was some highly successful individual. Lots of assets not protectable in bankruptcy. Investments like stocks. Non-exempt pensions (pensions so high that the state laws that most state have that say judgements cannot take a person's pension away do not apply). Multiple homes. Cash on hand. Cars, boats, other toys. Looking forward to paying for little johnny's private education with cash and then a cushy retirment. And the courts take it all away.
I knew a guy. Retired. He and wife were both school teachers. Not wealthy, but not poor either. Never had kids. Saved. Had a nice paid for home, traded cars every 4 years, went on vacations, lived OK. Then he had this wreck where he f***ed up the young girls life. Paraplegic. His fault. His insurance paid policy limits and walked away. He had to hire his own lawyer and everything. Had to pay over the majority of his life savings. Ended up living on just his teacher's pension and SS under far worse circumstances.
That is not everybody, and it is not even most people, but such people do exist.
Quote from: Duke87 on August 26, 2016, 12:42:40 AM
Quote from: vdeane on August 25, 2016, 06:33:37 PM
If Avis wanted her to go after the person who rented the car, they should have told her who that was.
They probably legally cannot, thanks to laws about disclosure of customers' personal information (or at least their own privacy policy in their contracts). She would have to sue John Doe and have the court subpoena the records (as Scott mentioned).
Of course, even if Avis could and did tell her who rented the car, a repair bill smaller than her insurance deductible is also going to be smaller than the cost of filing a lawsuit. This is the sort of situation where the economically sensible thing to do is eat the cost. It's already illegal to drive uninsured and yet people do it anyway. This isn't even a "loophole" so much as it is a case where someone blatantly violated at least one contract.
If it's the contract, I would think that would have become a non-factor when the person breached it by letting someone else drive the car. In any case, they could have given the woman the money, and then gone after the guy themselves. Charge him for the amount plus any costs of collection.
Plus they probably shouldn't have said "go after the person who rented the car" when it's obviously impossible to do so (for a reasonable amount of money) without being told who that is.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 25, 2016, 09:32:16 AM
This is why you whip out the cell phone and call the police first, not take pictures and get info first. If anything, get the tag number as soon as possible, then worry about getting the other guy's info.
And of course, those states with "quick clearance" laws have to be taken into consideration. If the state requires that you move your vehicle out of the travel lanes if it can be moved, then by all means take the pictures first.
I still think it's odd that insurance companies still tell people not to move their vehicles until the police get there, in contradiction to laws in many states. (We've had this discussion before...)