AirxLiban From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 4524 posts, RR: 52 Posted (10 years 8 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1378 times:
i have a question for all you lawyers out there.
if someone rents a car and signs off that he does NOT want the liability insurance but tells the staff that he does NOT have any other kind of insurance, then goes and has an accident that is his fault, who is responsible?
The guy who rented the car because he didn't have insurance or Enterprise for letting him drive knowing that he didn't have insurance.
Also, is it Enterprise's responsibility to tell him of the risks and possible consequences associated with no insurance etc.
By the way, this is NOT me but i was asked this question by a friend for another friend and would like to get back to him...
N6376m From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 8 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1360 times:
I assume that the question is in the US?
If that is the case, you've got a contractual issue. The lease contract probably says that you're liable and given that you probably signed in two places - (1) agreeing to the general terms and conditions and (2) specifically rejecting the extra insurance, you're probably screwed.
The contract probably contains wording indicating that the agreement is a complete integration of all terms and therefore oral evidence to the contrary is probably not even admissible. Even if it were, your assumption of liability is an issue completely independent of your ability to pay.
Someone in my family is a manager at Enterprise and I know that they self-insure. Not only that, the specific office involved has to bear some of the financial result for the loss. Therefore, they generally pursue these claims pretty vigorously. Your best bet is to negotiate with them to waive the amount of the claim attributable to loss of income while the car is out of commission (I'm told they regularly do this) but the loss attributable to the actual damage is probably going to be yours.
Avt007 From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2132 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (10 years 8 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1339 times:
So this is basically a case of someone unwilling or unable to accept the consequences of their own actions? This disease has swept the US,and is spreading across the UK according to my friends there. Done something stupid? Don't want to pay for it? Sue the nearest person and/or company that you see! Because, according to the latest craze, nothing is ever your fault! Tell your friend of a friend to stand up and be a man.
Air2gxs From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 8 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1327 times:
When you waive the insurance by initialing the 3 or 4 lines and then sign on the bottom, you are accepting financial responsibility for any damages incurred to the vehicle, loss of revenue on the vehicle and any damages the vehicle causes. Even if the accident is not your fault, it would be up to you to pursue the other person's insurance company because you assumed financial responsibility when you signed.
Av007, you're absolutely right, somebody wanted to save about $25.00 a day, got "caught" and is trying to find a way out of it. Hopefully, we will now get some legal reform in this country and try to get some people to take responsibility for their actions.
Sccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5840 posts, RR: 26
Reply 6, posted (10 years 8 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1307 times:
One "left-field" possibility; many premium credit card issuers include coverage for rental cars if you rent using their card.
In addition, in some states (Texas, for example), your personal automobile liability insurance may well have coverage for events occurring in a rental car. Your "friend" should aggressively pursue both avenues.
Because, absent such coverage, he is on the hook.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
AirxLiban From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 4524 posts, RR: 52
Reply 7, posted (10 years 8 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1289 times:
thanks all for ur responses.
Av007, agreed with you...and i can't think of why the hell he didn't just get the supplemental insurance for like $10 or whatever the hell it is.
Sccutler, that is good info...thanks for that
he claims he did not understand what he was getting. he asked for the minimum coverage which would make him not liable if he had an accident. and what they gave him made him not liable for damage to his rental car but not the other car.
he is wondering if there is any law which forces the company (enterprise) to let him know the risk he is getting himself into.
i figure probably not...i think he should just repair the other car and get it over with.