On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 22:35:18 -0400, wrote:

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

G. Mom asked me one morning: "Where is your rental car?"

I said, "In the driveway, we came in late last night."

Mom: "You better look, because the car is not there now."

Sure enough the rental car had been stolen in front of her home. I
called the rental company to explain what happened. They advised me
to call the police and file a formal report. The Police officer shows
up. Give him the rental papers and all information. Off he goes...

The rental agency delivered another car within a couple of hours.

They needed the police report filed so they could make a claim to
their insurance company.

I thought Mom was joking at first :-\

wrote:
Your lawyer: "Isn't it the case that you're raising this business
about the car now being stolen in a futile attempt to weasel out of
a monetary loss?"

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.


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.






Car guy: "Well... I wouldn't put it exactly that way..."

If the original written contract is deemed void, we then have a
verbal contract in which nothing is said about insurance or the
price of rice in China.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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're right. Contracts such as this almost always contain a severability
clause.

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:00:34 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

I'm going to be renting a car for a family vacation. I am trying to
find the cheapest way to add my wife and 2 sons as operators and
ensure that our private insurance will cover any accidents regardless
of who is driving.

In order to add 3 Additional Authorized Operators (AAO), the rental
company wants an extra $24/day for the 10 day trip, and that's with a
considerable discount.

I asked my insurance company what would would happen if I didn't add
them to the contract and one of them was involved in an accident. The
answer was:

"Well that is a hypothetical situation that I can not answer directly.
All I can say is that from a policy perspective they would be covered,
but from a legal perspective they might not be."

That was the best that I could get out of her since it was a
"hypothetical situation".

So I called the rental agency and ran it by them. The rental agent was
a bit more forthcoming.

"Your auto insurance policy coverage extends to any operator that you
authorize to operate a covered vehicle and your coverage also extends
to rental vehicles. Therefore, if you authorize someone to operate the
rental vehicle, they would be covered by your insurance.

However, in a worst case scenario, if an operator who is not listed as
an AAO with the rental agency has an accident, the rental agency has
the option to consider the contract null and void, which essentially
turns the vehicle into a stolen car. Since it would no longer be a
rental vehicle, but technically a vehicle involved in a crime, it
might not be covered by your policy."

He did mention that something like that has not happened, to his
knowledge, in a long, long time, but in a worst case scenario, it
could. He added that, hypothetically, it was up to me if I wanted to
take that chance.


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.

On Jul 21, 12:11*am, "Doug" wrote:


Find a different car rental and ask the same question.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 21:46:51 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Jul 21, 12:11*am, "Doug" wrote:


Find a different car rental and ask the same question.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.



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.

On Jul 20, 11:25*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On i, July 20, 2012 10:32:49 PM UTC-4, wrote:

On Jul 20, 3:17*pm, Evan > wrote:

>
> Insurance policies which cover any operator for any
> vehicle are quite expensive and you would know it
> for sure if you had one of those in effect...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Derby apparently believes he does. *Perhaps he
can tell us more.

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 exactly 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 rental 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.

Good enough for me.




At issue is the status of operators that are not authorized to drive the vehicle 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 unauthorized driver get in an accident.

I can certainly see a "loophole", or whatever you want to call it, where even 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 Ins Co could refuse to cover a driver that is not listed on the contract.

Maybe the car wouldn't be considered stolen, but there is obviously a reason why the Ins Co says to make sure that all drivers are listed on the contract. It can't be monetary because not only don't they make any money when the 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.

And we had one example so far of what potentially
could happen. That being an unauthorized driver
could be stopped by the cops during a traffic stop
or accident and unable to show a rental agreement
with their name on it, they might wind up having
the car impounded, detained, etc.

Other than that, as I can't see any other material
legal risk that you would be at. Also, consider that
the contract the rental company uses is the same
whether you take out optional insurance with them
or not. Now,if you did take out THEIR insurance
and then allowed an unauthorized person to drive
the car, then I think we can all see the clear legal
risk, in that the rental company then would have a
good and valid reason to say the insurance did
not cover them.

On Jul 20, 11:51*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:
Your lawyer: "Isn't it the case that you're raising this business
about the car now being stolen in a futile attempt to weasel out of
a monetary loss?"

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.

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.



Everything you listed can happen with or without
the extra driver being listed on the rental contract.
And whether the driver was listed or not, unless the
renter took out insurance with the rental car company
their position is going to be the same. You or
someone you let drive the car wrecked it and killed
the other people. You, the renter are responsible to
us for the cost of the car and we the rental company
are not responsible for the damages to the other
parties. So, again, I don't see any monetary loss to
the rental company that is different because the
renter did not add the additional driver.

On Jul 21, 6:21*am, "Doug" wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 21:46:51 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03





wrote:
On Jul 21, 12:11*am, "Doug" wrote:

Find a different car rental and ask the same question.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And I think you obviously have not rented many cars.
Every rental company I have used requires that
additional drivers be listed and they charge a daily
fee. The majors, eg Hertz, Avis, Enterprise all do it.
So, instead of Derby, maybe you should go talk to some rental
companies.

And I understand Derby's point about his corporate discount not
making it worthwhile to go find another company. I don't think he
could find a rental company
on this green earth that says they don't care if
additional drivers are listed or not. And even if they
did, the chance that they are going to have a deal
that is better than just taking the corp rate with the
rental company he has and paying the few extra bucks
to add the drivers is slim.


For years I rented cars with a Fortune
100 company that used Hertz. The rate which
was also available
when I rented a car for myself, was so good
that it wasn't worth the time and trouble to screw
around finding the special deal of the day to maybe
save a few bucks. Plus with Hertz, I was a gold
customer. The car was waiting with keys in it. I
did not even have to go into the office. Just find
my name on an electronic board and get the stall
number the car was sitting in just a few feet away.
After getting off a 6 hour plane ride, that is a very
big benefit to me..... As is the rental company
being right at the airport most of the time, not a
bus ride 2 miles away.

They also had other innovations that other companies
did not, at least back then. Like being able to pay for a tank of gas
when picking up the car and then bringing it back near empty. They
charged a fair price for the gas
if you bought it that way, about the same as the local
street price. So, if I expected to use nearly a tank or
more, I always took out that option. Again, a nice
convenience not having to worry about filling up a
rental car when returning to the airport.

"Doug" wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 21:46:51 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03


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.

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.


Come on... I meant a person who had a driver's license.

The point is that you can't just let anyone drive the rental just by
handing them the keys and expect the rental agency not to care. They want
to know who will be operating the vehicle that they own. If it was your car
wouldn't you want to know who was driving it?

Obviously if the renter was incapacitated they would probably give you some
leeway, even with an unlicensed driver, but it would be their choice. It
still wouldn't make it legal from a contract perspective.

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.

No, what I have is the best rate and mileage available to me so there is no
need for me to call anyone else. If i want that rate along with the
unlimited miles, i have to play by their rules. Besides, as others have
said, I doubt I can find a rental agency that wouldn't require me to list
additional drivers.

In addition, when I was talking to my Ins Co, there was no mention of which
rental agency I was using. That tells me the the situation is the same
across all rental agencies.

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 20:25:20 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On i, July 20, 2012 10:32:49 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Jul 20, 3:17Â*pm, Evan > wrote:

>
> Insurance policies which cover any operator for any
> vehicle are quite expensive and you would know it
> for sure if you had one of those in effect...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Derby apparently believes he does. Perhaps he
can tell us more.

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 exactly 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 rental 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 vehicle 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 unauthorized driver get in an accident.

I can certainly see a "loophole", or whatever you want to call it, where even 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 Ins Co could refuse to cover a
driver that is not listed on the contract.

Maybe the car wouldn't be considered stolen, but there is obviously a reason why the Ins Co says to make sure that all drivers are listed on the contract. It can't be monetary because not only don't they make any money when the 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.
You need to LIST the drivers. You do not need to insure them. You do
NOT want ANY of their insurance, or your "non-ownwd vehicle" insurance
does NOT cover you. You need to REFUSE their extended coverage.

In most cases, at least "up here" there is no extra charge for an
additional listed driver over 25 if you are not buying insurance. Not
sure about under 25, as I have not been in tha position for quite a
few years - kids both grown up.

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 21:46:51 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Jul 21, 12:11Â*am, "Doug" wrote:


Find a different car rental and ask the same question.

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 never heard
of this in the past tho I haven't rented a car lately. Â*I think you
are allowed to authorize a person to drive the car even if they aren't
listed as a main driver.

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.

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.

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.
My last 2 rentals were in europe, and there was no extra charge for
additional adult drivers, who just needed to be named at the time of
vehicle pickup. MY insurance was the only policy in effect on the one
and no deductible total coverage was included on the other - along
with no mileage limit - but the island was not very big! (Tennerife)

On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 12:38:43 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
wrote:

"Doug" wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 21:46:51 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03


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.

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.


Come on... I meant a person who had a driver's license.

The point is that you can't just let anyone drive the rental just by
handing them the keys and expect the rental agency not to care. They want
to know who will be operating the vehicle that they own. If it was your car
wouldn't you want to know who was driving it?

Obviously if the renter was incapacitated they would probably give you some
leeway, even with an unlicensed driver, but it would be their choice. It
still wouldn't make it legal from a contract perspective.

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.

No, what I have is the best rate and mileage available to me so there is no
need for me to call anyone else. If i want that rate along with the
unlimited miles, i have to play by their rules. Besides, as others have
said, I doubt I can find a rental agency that wouldn't require me to list
additional drivers.

In addition, when I was talking to my Ins Co, there was no mention of which
rental agency I was using. That tells me the the situation is the same
across all rental agencies.


Or they didn't know so they wouldn't say??? Seems to me you're
asking for legal advice and should seek a lawyer if it really worries
you that much or just do as the car rental said authorize in writing
the other drivers and that ends your worries.

Also just a heads up but if you ask your insurance agent a question
and they don't know, ask them to ask their underwriters.

wrote:

If you have "non owned vehicle coverage" from your insurer, you
don't need to buy insurance from the rental company -

We know that.

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.

That's part of the issue. My sons are not named on my policy.


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.

It would not be the Ins Co claiming it was "stolen", it would be the rental
agency. At that point the Ins Co *could* say "The operator at the time is
not our customer and he was not authorized by the rental company to operate
the vehicle that our customer contracted, therefore we are not going to
cover the incident.


In Ontario anyway. No idea how those things work in Yankee-Land

On Jul 21, 10:19*am, "Doug" wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 12:38:43 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03





wrote:
"Doug" wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 21:46:51 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03

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.

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.

Come on... I meant a person who had a driver's license.

The point is that you can't just let anyone drive the rental just by
handing them the keys and expect the rental agency not to care. They want
to know who will be operating the vehicle that they own. If it was your car
wouldn't you want to know who was driving it?

Obviously if the renter was incapacitated they would probably give you some
leeway, even with an unlicensed driver, but it would be their choice. It
still wouldn't make it legal from a contract perspective.

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.

No, what I have is the best rate and mileage available to me so there is no
need for me to call anyone else. If i want that rate along with the
unlimited miles, i have to play by their rules. Besides, as others have
said, I doubt I can find a rental agency that wouldn't require me to list
additional drivers.

In addition, when I was talking to my Ins Co, there was no mention of which
rental agency I was using. That tells me the the situation is the same
across all rental agencies.

Or they didn't know so they wouldn't say??? * Seems to me you're
asking for legal advice and should seek a lawyer if it really worries
you that much or just do as the car rental said authorize in writing
the other drivers and that ends your worries.

Also just a heads up but if you ask your insurance agent a question
and they don't know, ask them to ask their underwriters. *- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This from the guy who obviously has little experience
renting cars.

On Jul 21, 9:47*am, wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 20:25:20 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03





wrote:
On i, July 20, 2012 10:32:49 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Jul 20, 3:17*pm, Evan > wrote:

>
> Insurance policies which cover any operator for any
> vehicle are quite expensive and you would know it
> for sure if you had one of those in effect...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Derby apparently believes he does. *Perhaps he
can tell us more.

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 exactly 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 rental 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 vehicle 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 unauthorized driver get in an accident.

I can certainly see a "loophole", or whatever you want to call it, where even 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 Ins Co could refuse to cover a

driver that is not listed on the contract.

Maybe the car wouldn't be considered stolen, but there is obviously a reason why the Ins Co says to make sure that all drivers are listed on the contract. It can't be monetary because not only don't they make any money when the 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.

* You need to LIST the drivers.

Besides saying he "needs" to, why exactly would that be?
So far we have his own insurance company saying he
would be covered under the policy whether the drive
is listed or not.
And the only scenario anyone has come up with where
I can see a material difference is if an unlisted driver is
driving the rental car and gets pulled over by the police.
With his name not on the contract, it MIGHT result in
the car being impounded, the driver detained. But even
that seems unlikely to me.



You do not need to insure them. You do
NOT want ANY of their insurance, or your "non-ownwd vehicle" insurance
does NOT cover you. You need to REFUSE their extended coverage.

That's incorrect as well. The fact that you took out
some other insurance does not mean that your own
insurance company is off the hook. The rental
insurance would likely be the PRIMARY coverage,
but if you kill a car load of nuns and exceed it, then
your own insurance company has to pay too.



In most cases, at least "up here" there is no extra charge for an
additional listed driver over 25 if you are not buying insurance. Not
sure about under 25, as I have not been in tha position for quite a
few years - kids both grown up.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That may be true in Canada, but it's not true in the USA.
Not with any of the rental companies I've dealt with and
that includes Hertz, Avis, Enterprise....

wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 20:25:20 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On i, July 20, 2012 10:32:49 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Jul 20, 3:17 pm, Evan > wrote:

>
> Insurance policies which cover any operator for any
> vehicle are quite expensive and you would know it
> for sure if you had one of those in effect...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Derby apparently believes he does. Perhaps he
can tell us more.

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
exactly 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
rental 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
vehicle 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 unauthorized driver get in an accident.

I can certainly see a "loophole", or whatever you want to call it, where
even 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 Ins Co could refuse to cover a
driver that is not listed on the contract.

Maybe the car wouldn't be considered stolen, but there is obviously a
reason why the Ins Co says to make sure that all drivers are listed on
the contract. It can't be monetary because not only don't they make any
money when the 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.
You need to LIST the drivers. You do not need to insure them. You do
NOT want ANY of their insurance, or your "non-ownwd vehicle" insurance
does NOT cover you. You need to REFUSE their extended coverage.

You need to stop telling things that I already know.

No where in this thread is there any indication that I am buying the
insurance from the rental agency. This whole thread has only been about
the question of whether or not *my* insurance company will cover an
operator that is not listed on the rental contract.

I'll repeat what I said in my OP: *My* insurance company has told me that
from a policy perspective, all operators would be covered but that there
might be *legal* ramifications related to that coverage if the drivers are
not listed on the rental contract. Those (unspecified) legal ramifications
may render the coverage from *my* insurance company void.

That's why I say that my insurance company is protecting me by telling me
to:

1 - Refuse the rental agency insurance coverage since I'm covered through
them.
2 - Make sure all drivers are listed so that there will be no "legal"
problems with my insurance company covering an incident.


In most cases, at least "up here" there is no extra charge for an
additional listed driver over 25 if you are not buying insurance. Not
sure about under 25, as I have not been in tha position for quite a
few years - kids both grown up.

As noted earlier in this thread, there is a charge from the rental agency
($3) for each additional operator, regardless of age. There is an
additional charge of $15 for operators between 20 and 24, $41 for operators
under 20.

DerbyDad03 wrote:
I'm going to be renting a car for a family vacation. I am trying to
find the cheapest way to add my wife and 2 sons as operators and
ensure that our private insurance will cover any accidents regardless
of who is driving.

In order to add 3 Additional Authorized Operators (AAO), the rental
company wants an extra $24/day for the 10 day trip, and that's with a
considerable discount.

I asked my insurance company what would would happen if I didn't add
them to the contract and one of them was involved in an accident. The
answer was:

"Well that is a hypothetical situation that I can not answer directly.
All I can say is that from a policy perspective they would be covered,
but from a legal perspective they might not be."

That was the best that I could get out of her since it was a
"hypothetical situation".

So I called the rental agency and ran it by them. The rental agent was
a bit more forthcoming.

"Your auto insurance policy coverage extends to any operator that you
authorize to operate a covered vehicle and your coverage also extends
to rental vehicles. Therefore, if you authorize someone to operate the
rental vehicle, they would be covered by your insurance.

However, in a worst case scenario, if an operator who is not listed as
an AAO with the rental agency has an accident, the rental agency has
the option to consider the contract null and void, which essentially
turns the vehicle into a stolen car. Since it would no longer be a
rental vehicle, but technically a vehicle involved in a crime, it
might not be covered by your policy."

He did mention that something like that has not happened, to his
knowledge, in a long, long time, but in a worst case scenario, it
could. He added that, hypothetically, it was up to me if I wanted to
take that chance.

Never trust a word a car rental company tells you. They will lie through their
teeth to get an extra buck.

After a rantal company in Hawaii told me that if I didn't buy their collision
damage waiver, if I had an accident, I'd have to pay them in cash before I could
leave Hawaii, I called the Hawaiian Attorney Generals office. The guy I told
this to there asked me "What are they going to do, send a goon to the bank with
you?" The rental company ended up returning my CDW payment.

I had an extra hour at the airport after dropping off my rental at the end of
the visit, so I hung out where the rental company dropped people off at the
airport, and got three other people to sign statements that they had been
similarly lied to. All these were copied to the Hawaii and Washington state
attorney generals and the Hawaii insurance commissioners office. A couple years
later, I received a copy of Hawaiis just changed rental insurance laws from the
insurance commisioners office.

The rental company in Hawaii also told me that I would have to deal with my own
insurance company about any claims, that the rental company had nobody that
would talk to my insurance. When I called the rental company after getting home,
I was told "we have a whole department that does that".

Check up on anything the rental people tell you.

On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 07:54:52 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Jul 21, 10:19*am, "Doug" wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 12:38:43 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03





wrote:
"Doug" wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 21:46:51 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03

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.

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.

Come on... I meant a person who had a driver's license.

The point is that you can't just let anyone drive the rental just by
handing them the keys and expect the rental agency not to care. They want
to know who will be operating the vehicle that they own. If it was your car
wouldn't you want to know who was driving it?

Obviously if the renter was incapacitated they would probably give you some
leeway, even with an unlicensed driver, but it would be their choice. It
still wouldn't make it legal from a contract perspective.

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.

No, what I have is the best rate and mileage available to me so there is no
need for me to call anyone else. If i want that rate along with the
unlimited miles, i have to play by their rules. Besides, as others have
said, I doubt I can find a rental agency that wouldn't require me to list
additional drivers.

In addition, when I was talking to my Ins Co, there was no mention of which
rental agency I was using. That tells me the the situation is the same
across all rental agencies.

Or they didn't know so they wouldn't say??? * Seems to me you're
asking for legal advice and should seek a lawyer if it really worries
you that much or just do as the car rental said authorize in writing
the other drivers and that ends your worries.

Also just a heads up but if you ask your insurance agent a question
and they don't know, ask them to ask their underwriters. *- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This from the guy who obviously has little experience
renting cars.


No, this is from a guy who has a lot experience with insurance agents
in other matters !!!!!

On Jul 20, 3:41*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:

"Additional driver not signed on contract.

What if I just allow them to drive without adding them on the
contract?

Failure to add someone on the contract could result in the car being
impounded if stopped by the police."

Maybe that's just fluff, or maybe the police really could impound the
car, for which they must have a legal reason.

Yes, the legal reason is that you as the contracted
(rental) user of the vehicle do not have legal authority
to determine who can and can not use the vehicle,
only its owner, the rental company can do that...

That is why all persons who will or could be driving
the rental vehicle should be listed as additional
authorized operators... There are different laws in
different states but since you are not the legal
registered owner of the vehicle your decisions and
directives as far as who can use it are meaningless...

It is a crime of varying severity to be operating a
motor vehicle without authority and connected to
it are various offenses such as uninsured operation
of a motor vehicle -- as if you are not authorized
by the owner to operate it and have no proof
available at the scene of the accident/traffic stop
to prove you have specific insurance coverage
for that driver on that vehicle it is big trouble...

The police can impound the car since if they
come upon it involved in an accident or stop
it for a traffic offense and it is ot being operated
by an authorized user as described on the contract
then it is evidence related to the criminal infractions
and why would the police want to allow the authorized
operator (even if they were present) the continued
ability to commit additional fraud against the owner...

On Jul 20, 10:08*pm, "
wrote:
On Jul 20, 7:02*pm, G. Morgan wrote:









DerbyDad03 wrote:
Their website does have this in their FAQ:

"Additional driver not signed on contract.

What if I just allow them to drive without adding them on the
contract?

Failure to add someone on the contract could result in the car being
impounded if stopped by the police."

Maybe that's just fluff, or maybe the police really could impound the
car, for which they must have a legal reason.

Because the second a non-additional driver moves an inch behind the
wheel, and you the contracted allowed it - the contract is broken right
then.

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.

There is a difference between being the registered
owner of a vehicle with a financial lien against its
title (i.e. why a financing company would be
involved) which would be entirely a civil matter
unless some intent to defraud the financing company
could be proven against the registered owner of
said vehicle...

And the situation where you are merely a contracted
user of a vehicle owned by someone else (the rental
company)... The police can refuse to allow you to
retake possession of such a vehicle after a traffic
stop or accident (in both situations your vehicle is
considered to be seized by the police during the
duration of the incident unless and until the police
release custody of it back to the legal owner or
someone the legal owner designates) and why would
the police trust an authorized user of a rental car
who allowed someone not authorized to operate the
vehicle and it was either involved in a traffic accident
or violated traffic laws to continue to be honest and
only allow the authorized users to operate it when
the fact that it was stopped or crashed with someone
else driving it say otherwise... Impound and allow
the legal owner to come collect it is the typical
police mindset on such things...

"Doug" wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 12:38:43 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03


In addition, when I was talking to my Ins Co, there was no mention of which
rental agency I was using. That tells me the the situation is the same
across all rental agencies.


Or they didn't know so they wouldn't say??? Seems to me you're
asking for legal advice and should seek a lawyer if it really worries
you that much or just do as the car rental said authorize in writing
the other drivers and that ends your worries.


Obviously you haven't read this thread very carefully. I have already said
that I am planning to authorize and pay for additional drivers.

Everything else in this thread has been nothing more than a lively
discussion. Why would I possibly need to talk a lawyer? To save a few bucks
on car rental? Gimme a break.

Also just a heads up but if you ask your insurance agent a question
and they don't know, ask them to ask their underwriters.

Obviously you haven't read this thread very carefully. In every post I have
used the terms Ins Co or insurance company. I have not been talking to an
agent. As a matter of fact I was talking to at least a 2nd level
representative of my Ins Co customer service department. 1st level was not
sure of the answer and said "Hang on while I get in touch with someone
knowledgable in that area." I am very confident that the person I spoke to
was knowledgable with regards to my coverage as it applies to rental
vehicles. For all I know I _was_ talking to an underwriter.

On Jul 20, 10:32*pm, "
wrote:
On Jul 20, 3:17*pm, Evan wrote:









On Jul 20, 2:00*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:

I'm going to be renting a car for a family vacation. I am trying to
find the cheapest way to add my wife and 2 sons as operators and
ensure that our private insurance will cover any accidents regardless
of who is driving.

In order to add 3 Additional Authorized Operators (AAO), the rental
company wants an extra $24/day for the 10 day trip, and that's with a
considerable discount.

I asked my insurance company what would would happen if I didn't add
them to the contract and one of them was involved in an accident. *The
answer was:

"Well that is a hypothetical situation that I can not answer directly..
All I can say is that from a policy perspective they would be covered,
but from a legal perspective they might not be."

That was the best that I could get out of her since it was a
"hypothetical situation".

So I called the rental agency and ran it by them. The rental agent was
a bit more forthcoming.

"Your auto insurance policy coverage extends to any operator that you
authorize to operate a covered vehicle and your coverage also extends
to rental vehicles. Therefore, if you authorize someone to operate the
rental vehicle, they would be covered by your insurance.

However, in a worst case scenario, if an operator who is not listed as
an AAO with the rental agency has an accident, the rental agency has
the option to consider the contract null and void, which essentially
turns the vehicle into a stolen car. Since it would no longer be a
rental vehicle, but technically a vehicle involved in a crime, it
might not be covered by your policy."

He did mention that something like that has not happened, to his
knowledge, in a long, long time, but in a worst case scenario, it
could. He added that, hypothetically, it was up to me if I wanted to
take that chance.

I would not buy into what either of the experts you have
spoken to about this issue, there are too many variables
which change when you cross state lines...

Your rental agent is correct in that the PRIMARY policy
holder is covered when operating a rental vehicle, that
coverage does not always extend to additional insureds
designated for specific vehicles under a policy...

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

where you need to cover yourself and figure out how that
works in the states you are going to travel through...

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.



Your insurance agent is correct on the contract law issue,
without disclosing who is going to be operating a rental
vehicle on the contract, which becomes the vehicle
registration document during your authorized use of the
rental, if you were in an accident and the operator was
not listed on that contract as an authorized operator
by the rental agency (the owner of the vehicle) then
you may have an operator who is in trouble for
unauthorized use of a motor vehicle...

In doubt the laws for unauthorized use would apply
and I've never heard of any such crazy case being
brought.



The rental company has lots of insurance on its fleet
of vehicles so it is covered, however if you breach the
terms of the rental agreement you would not be covered

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?

nor would your auto insurer pay out any claims for your
violation of the terms of the rental contract...

What would such a claim for violation even be?

*Expect

a lawsuit for any damages caused by your allowing
an operator not listed on the rental contract driving
the rental vehicle and getting into an accident while
behind the wheel plus any allowable damages for
the breach of the contract under the state law where
the rental took place, or in the state where the rental
company is headquartered (there will be fine print
somewhere on the contract which specifies the
jurisdiction of the court which will settle all disputes
which you agree to by entering into and signing
the contract)...

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?



Insurance policies which cover any operator for any
vehicle are quite expensive and you would know it
for sure if you had one of those in effect...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Derby apparently believes he does. *Perhaps he
can tell us more.

Once you violate the terms of the contract
(by allowing an non-listed driver to operate it)
the vehicle is not covered by any of your own
supplemental insurance from your own policy
because you allowed it to be used in an
improper way in breach of the covenant of
agreement for its use known as the rental
contract... Your insurer can drop your
coverage for issues like that because your
choice to breach a contract or law was
willful and not considered "normally acceptable
use"... Just the same way your insurer
can cancel your policy or refuse to pay out
on claims if you operate your own vehicles
with expired registration tags or an invalid
inspection sticker because both of those
conditions are not legal uses of the vehicle
under just about every motor vehicle law
in every state on public roadways...

It is not a "claim for violation of the contract"
it is ANY claim made, as the instant you
breach the contract you VOID your supposed
insurance coverages...

What losses does the rental company
have if a non-listed non-authorized driver
gets into an accident with one of their
vehicles ? Umm... The rental income
which that vehicle would bring in from
other renters using it during the duration
of the repairs and any impoundment by
authorities during an investigation...
That has a value to it that the unauthorized
use and subsequent damage has deprived
the rental company of and due to your
willful breach of contract that is but one
of the "losses" you have caused the
rental company...

On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 15:55:02 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 20:25:20 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On i, July 20, 2012 10:32:49 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Jul 20, 3:17 pm, Evan > wrote:

>
> Insurance policies which cover any operator for any
> vehicle are quite expensive and you would know it
> for sure if you had one of those in effect...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Derby apparently believes he does. Perhaps he
can tell us more.

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
exactly 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
rental 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
vehicle 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 unauthorized driver get in an accident.

I can certainly see a "loophole", or whatever you want to call it, where
even 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 Ins Co could refuse to cover a
driver that is not listed on the contract.

Maybe the car wouldn't be considered stolen, but there is obviously a
reason why the Ins Co says to make sure that all drivers are listed on
the contract. It can't be monetary because not only don't they make any
money when the 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.
You need to LIST the drivers. You do not need to insure them. You do
NOT want ANY of their insurance, or your "non-ownwd vehicle" insurance
does NOT cover you. You need to REFUSE their extended coverage.

You need to stop telling things that I already know.

No where in this thread is there any indication that I am buying the
insurance from the rental agency. This whole thread has only been about
the question of whether or not *my* insurance company will cover an
operator that is not listed on the rental contract.

I'll repeat what I said in my OP: *My* insurance company has told me that
from a policy perspective, all operators would be covered but that there
might be *legal* ramifications related to that coverage if the drivers are
not listed on the rental contract. Those (unspecified) legal ramifications
may render the coverage from *my* insurance company void.

That's why I say that my insurance company is protecting me by telling me
to:

1 - Refuse the rental agency insurance coverage since I'm covered through
them.
2 - Make sure all drivers are listed so that there will be no "legal"
problems with my insurance company covering an incident.


In most cases, at least "up here" there is no extra charge for an
additional listed driver over 25 if you are not buying insurance. Not
sure about under 25, as I have not been in tha position for quite a
few years - kids both grown up.

As noted earlier in this thread, there is a charge from the rental agency
($3) for each additional operator, regardless of age. There is an
additional charge of $15 for operators between 20 and 24, $41 for operators
under 20.
OK. Not to be ignorant or anything, but what's your question?
Register all drivers 25 or older with the rental company, and no
drivers under 25 get the keys. Simple.

On Jul 20, 11:25*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On i, July 20, 2012 10:32:49 PM UTC-4, wrote:

On Jul 20, 3:17*pm, Evan > wrote:

>
> Insurance policies which cover any operator for any
> vehicle are quite expensive and you would know it
> for sure if you had one of those in effect...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Derby apparently believes he does. *Perhaps he
can tell us more.

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 exactly 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 rental 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 vehicle 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 unauthorized driver get in an accident.

I can certainly see a "loophole", or whatever you want to call it, where even 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 Ins Co could refuse to cover a driver that is not listed on the contract.

Maybe the car wouldn't be considered stolen, but there is obviously a reason why the Ins Co says to make sure that all drivers are listed on the contract. It can't be monetary because not only don't they make any money when the 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.

Bull****... Period...

Since you are not the legal owner of any rental vehicle you lack
legal authority to choose who can and can not use it... Period...

Contract law governs the rest, IF you breach the terms of the
rental agreement by allowing anyone other than the users
listed on the contract by the rental company THEN your
insurer is not legally required to pay for your fraudulent
and unauthorized use of the vehicle... It is NOT yours,
you do not own it like you do your specifically identified
and covered vehicles listed on your auto policy...

That seems to be where your disconnect is...

Your car = you can decide who can drive it under the
terms and limitations of your insurance policy...

Rental car = you have no legal authority beyond the
use of the car within the terms of the contract, your
insurance will not magically pay out on a claim
for a driver who is not listed on the rental contract
even if that person is covered to operate vehicles
which you own because their operation of the
rental was in breach of the terms of the rental
contract...

The rental contract has to list the authorized
operators as well as the insurance information
so that you have that contract as a "registration
document" and "proof of insurance" for those
allowed to use the vehicle on your possession
and in the vehicle at all times during your use...

Lose that contract and in addition to
"unauthorized use of a motor vehicle"
you would also be operating a vehicle
"unregistered/uninsured" as you have nothing
in your possession or in the car which
states that you have authority to operate
the vehicle in your possession nor that
you have any documents indicating proper
insurance coverage...

As far as your insurance policy coverage
extending to anyone and everyone you
desire, no way, a casual user who drives
your car once or twice in a year is one thing,
but you can not allow someone regular use
of your vehicle without providing their information
to your insurance provider and that can effect
the price of your policy...

Again, you would know it if you had a fleet
vehicle policy where the listing of specifically
approved users for each covered vehicle
would be impractical as the patterns of use
change daily and authority is granted by
one's status as an employee with a valid
driver's license and clean driver's history...
Those cost a lot of money, you would know
it for sure if you had such a policy...

On Jul 20, 11:23*pm, "
wrote:
On Jul 20, 10:44*pm, Doug Miller
wrote:









DerbyDad03 wrote in news:8b1f22c9-a3b9-4ef9-9b02-
:

I'm going to be renting a car for a family vacation. I am trying to
find the cheapest way to add my wife and 2 sons as operators and
ensure that our private insurance will cover any accidents regardless
of who is driving.

In order to add 3 Additional Authorized Operators (AAO), the rental
company wants an extra $24/day for the 10 day trip, and that's with a
considerable discount.

I asked my insurance company what would would happen if I didn't add
them to the contract and one of them was involved in an accident. *The
answer was:

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.

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?

Because having the driver properly listed
on the rental agreement would be obeying
the terms of the contract... Once you breach
them you are in a grey area where even if
one of the insurance companies does pay
out for something they can come after you
for repayment because your choice to
breach the contract caused the loss...

On Jul 21, 12:51*pm, "Bob F" wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote:
I'm going to be renting a car for a family vacation. I am trying to
find the cheapest way to add my wife and 2 sons as operators and
ensure that our private insurance will cover any accidents regardless
of who is driving.

In order to add 3 Additional Authorized Operators (AAO), the rental
company wants an extra $24/day for the 10 day trip, and that's with a
considerable discount.

I asked my insurance company what would would happen if I didn't add
them to the contract and one of them was involved in an accident. *The
answer was:

"Well that is a hypothetical situation that I can not answer directly.
All I can say is that from a policy perspective they would be covered,
but from a legal perspective they might not be."

That was the best that I could get out of her since it was a
"hypothetical situation".

So I called the rental agency and ran it by them. The rental agent was
a bit more forthcoming.

"Your auto insurance policy coverage extends to any operator that you
authorize to operate a covered vehicle and your coverage also extends
to rental vehicles. Therefore, if you authorize someone to operate the
rental vehicle, they would be covered by your insurance.

However, in a worst case scenario, if an operator who is not listed as
an AAO with the rental agency has an accident, the rental agency has
the option to consider the contract null and void, which essentially
turns the vehicle into a stolen car. Since it would no longer be a
rental vehicle, but technically a vehicle involved in a crime, it
might not be covered by your policy."

He did mention that something like that has not happened, to his
knowledge, in a long, long time, but in a worst case scenario, it
could. He added that, hypothetically, it was up to me if I wanted to
take that chance.

Never trust a word a car rental company tells you. They will lie through their
teeth to get an extra buck.

After a rantal company in Hawaii told me that if I didn't buy their collision
damage waiver, if I had an accident, I'd have to pay them in cash before I could
leave Hawaii, I called the Hawaiian Attorney Generals office. The guy I told
this to there asked me "What are they going to do, send a goon to the bank with
you?" The rental company ended up returning my CDW payment.

I had an extra hour at the airport after dropping off my rental at the end of
the visit, so I hung out where the rental company dropped people off at the
airport, and got three other people to sign statements that they had been
similarly lied to. All these were copied to the Hawaii and Washington state
attorney generals and the Hawaii insurance commissioners office. A couple years
later, I received a copy of Hawaiis just changed rental insurance laws from the
insurance commisioners office.

The rental company in Hawaii also told me that I would have to deal with my own
insurance company about any claims, that the rental company had nobody that
would talk to my insurance. When I called the rental company after getting home,
I was told "we have a whole department that does that".

Check up on anything the rental people tell you.

Don't rely on your insurance coverage amounts
complying with the laws in other states...

It is one thing to operate your vehicle registered
in compliance with your states' laws elsewhere,
but a rental car might not be registered in your
state or even where you are purchasing the rental
insurance... Why take the risk that your insurance
amounts are insufficient to comply with the laws
where you are travelling -- as improper insurance
coverage (or not being insured at all) are crimes...

On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 18:02:02 -0700 (PDT), Evan
wrote:

On Jul 20, 11:25Â*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On i, July 20, 2012 10:32:49 PM UTC-4, wrote:

On Jul 20, 3:17Â*pm, Evan > wrote:

>
> Insurance policies which cover any operator for any
> vehicle are quite expensive and you would know it
> for sure if you had one of those in effect...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Derby apparently believes he does. Â*Perhaps he
can tell us more.

Keep in mind who you are responding to. Â*That's Evan that posted that.

My policy, which is nothing special and certainly not expensive, covers exactly 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 rental 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 vehicle 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 unauthorized driver get in an accident.

I can certainly see a "loophole", or whatever you want to call it, where even 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 Ins Co could refuse to cover a
driver that is not listed on the contract.

Maybe the car wouldn't be considered stolen, but there is obviously a reason why the Ins Co says to make sure that all drivers are listed on the contract. It can't be monetary because not only don't they make any money when the 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.

Bull****... Period...

Since you are not the legal owner of any rental vehicle you lack
legal authority to choose who can and can not use it... Period...

Contract law governs the rest, IF you breach the terms of the
rental agreement by allowing anyone other than the users
listed on the contract by the rental company THEN your
insurer is not legally required to pay for your fraudulent
and unauthorized use of the vehicle... It is NOT yours,
you do not own it like you do your specifically identified
and covered vehicles listed on your auto policy...

That seems to be where your disconnect is...

Your car = you can decide who can drive it under the
terms and limitations of your insurance policy...

Rental car = you have no legal authority beyond the
use of the car within the terms of the contract, your
insurance will not magically pay out on a claim
for a driver who is not listed on the rental contract
even if that person is covered to operate vehicles
which you own because their operation of the
rental was in breach of the terms of the rental
contract...

The rental contract has to list the authorized
operators as well as the insurance information
so that you have that contract as a "registration
document" and "proof of insurance" for those
allowed to use the vehicle on your possession
and in the vehicle at all times during your use...

Lose that contract and in addition to
"unauthorized use of a motor vehicle"
you would also be operating a vehicle
"unregistered/uninsured" as you have nothing
in your possession or in the car which
states that you have authority to operate
the vehicle in your possession nor that
you have any documents indicating proper
insurance coverage...

As far as your insurance policy coverage
extending to anyone and everyone you
desire, no way, a casual user who drives
your car once or twice in a year is one thing,
but you can not allow someone regular use
of your vehicle without providing their information
to your insurance provider and that can effect
the price of your policy...

We lent my daughter's boyfriend our "extra" vehicle for a couple of
weeks after his car was stolen, and his rental coverage was used up
waiting for setlement. When it stretched out to a month we added him
as primary driver on that vehicle - for $189 per year. (it's coming up
4 months now - still no settlement)

Fleet policy is not required for 3 vehicles and 4 or 5 drivers if they
are part of a single household or family - and "fleet" doesn't
necessarily cover a rental or "unowned vehicle".
And a "casual" driver does not need to be listed on the policy - you
CAN lend your car to your neighbour or friend for a day without having
them added to your policy.

At least in Ontario - I cannot speak for USA or elsewhere.
Again, you would know it if you had a fleet
vehicle policy where the listing of specifically
approved users for each covered vehicle
would be impractical as the patterns of use
change daily and authority is granted by
one's status as an employee with a valid
driver's license and clean driver's history...
Those cost a lot of money, you would know
it for sure if you had such a policy...

wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 15:55:02 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03


As noted earlier in this thread, there is a charge from the rental agency
($3) for each additional operator, regardless of age. There is an
additional charge of $15 for operators between 20 and 24, $41 for operators
under 20.
OK. Not to be ignorant or anything, but what's your question?
Register all drivers 25 or older with the rental company, and no
drivers under 25 get the keys. Simple.

There never really was a question. I was simply pointing out what I was
told by my Ins Co and the rental agency regarding coverage for authorized
vs. non-authorized drivers as a means to start what I knew would be a
lively discussion.

Who I choose to list and pay for is totally up to me and not really related
to this discussion.

OK OK OK

Here is another thing to watch out for...

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.

I just went through this..

Mark

On Jul 21, 8:31*pm, Evan wrote:
On Jul 20, 10:08*pm, "
wrote:





On Jul 20, 7:02*pm, G. Morgan wrote:

DerbyDad03 wrote:
Their website does have this in their FAQ:

"Additional driver not signed on contract.

What if I just allow them to drive without adding them on the
contract?

Failure to add someone on the contract could result in the car being
impounded if stopped by the police."

Maybe that's just fluff, or maybe the police really could impound the
car, for which they must have a legal reason.

Because the second a non-additional driver moves an inch behind the
wheel, and you the contracted allowed it - the contract is broken right
then.

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.

There is a difference between being the registered
owner of a vehicle with a financial lien against its
title (i.e. why a financing company would be
involved) which would be entirely a civil matter
unless some intent to defraud the financing company
could be proven against the registered owner of
said vehicle...

And the situation where you are merely a contracted
user of a vehicle owned by someone else (the rental
company)... *The police can refuse to allow you to
retake possession of such a vehicle after a traffic
stop or accident (in both situations your vehicle is
considered to be seized by the police during the
duration of the incident unless and until the police
release custody of it back to the legal owner or
someone the legal owner designates) and why would
the police trust an authorized user of a rental car
who allowed someone not authorized to operate the
vehicle and it was either involved in a traffic accident
or violated traffic laws to continue to be honest and
only allow the authorized users to operate it when
the fact that it was stopped or crashed with someone
else driving it say otherwise... *Impound and allow
the legal owner to come collect it is the typical
police mindset on such things...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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.

On Jul 21, 8:19*pm, Evan wrote:
On Jul 20, 3:41*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:

"Additional driver not signed on contract.

What if I just allow them to drive without adding them on the
contract?

Failure to add someone on the contract could result in the car being
impounded if stopped by the police."

Maybe that's just fluff, or maybe the police really could impound the
car, for which they must have a legal reason.

Yes, the legal reason is that you as the contracted
(rental) user of the vehicle do not have legal authority
to determine who can and can not use the vehicle,
only its owner, the rental company can do that...

That is why all persons who will or could be driving
the rental vehicle should be listed as additional
authorized operators... *There are different laws in
different states but since you are not the legal
registered owner of the vehicle your decisions and
directives as far as who can use it are meaningless...

It is a crime of varying severity to be operating a
motor vehicle without authority and connected to
it are various offenses such as uninsured operation
of a motor vehicle -- as if you are not authorized
by the owner to operate it and have no proof
available at the scene of the accident/traffic stop
to prove you have specific insurance coverage
for that driver on that vehicle it is big trouble...

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.




The police can impound the car since if they
come upon it involved in an accident or stop
it for a traffic offense and it is ot being operated
by an authorized user as described on the contract
then it is evidence related to the criminal infractions
and why would the police want to allow the authorized
operator (even if they were present) the continued
ability to commit additional fraud against the owner...

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 ****.
You remind me of Barney Fife.

On Jul 21, 10:23*pm, Mark wrote:
OK OK OK

Here is another thing to watch out for...

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.

I just went through this..

Mark

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?

On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 18:04:35 -0700 (PDT), Evan
wrote:



Because having the driver properly listed
on the rental agreement would be obeying
the terms of the contract... Once you breach
them you are in a grey area where even if
one of the insurance companies does pay
out for something they can come after you
for repayment because your choice to
breach the contract caused the loss...

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.

On Jul 21, 9:02*pm, Evan wrote:
On Jul 20, 11:25*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:





On i, July 20, 2012 10:32:49 PM UTC-4, wrote:

On Jul 20, 3:17*pm, Evan > wrote:

>
> Insurance policies which cover any operator for any
> vehicle are quite expensive and you would know it
> for sure if you had one of those in effect...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Derby apparently believes he does. *Perhaps he
can tell us more.

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 exactly 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 rental 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 vehicle 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 unauthorized driver get in an accident.

I can certainly see a "loophole", or whatever you want to call it, where even 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 Ins Co could refuse to cover a driver that is not listed on the contract..

Maybe the car wouldn't be considered stolen, but there is obviously a reason why the Ins Co says to make sure that all drivers are listed on the contract. It can't be monetary because not only don't they make any money when the 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.

Bull****... *Period...

Since you are not the legal owner of any rental vehicle you lack
legal authority to choose who can and can not use it... *Period...

Contract law governs the rest, IF you breach the terms of the
rental agreement by allowing anyone other than the users
listed on the contract by the rental company THEN your
insurer is not legally required to pay for your fraudulent
and unauthorized use of the vehicle...

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.



*It is NOT yours,
you do not own it like you do your specifically identified
and covered vehicles listed on your auto policy...

That seems to be where your disconnect is...

I'd say you're the one disconnected here.



Your car = you can decide who can drive it under the
terms and limitations of your insurance policy...

Rental car = you have no legal authority beyond the
use of the car within the terms of the contract, your
insurance will not magically pay out on a claim
for a driver who is not listed on the rental contract
even if that person is covered to operate vehicles
which you own because their operation of the
rental was in breach of the terms of the rental
contract...

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?




The rental contract has to list the authorized
operators as well as the insurance information
so that you have that contract as a "registration
document" and "proof of insurance" for those
allowed to use the vehicle on your possession
and in the vehicle at all times during your use...

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.





Lose that contract and in addition to
"unauthorized use of a motor vehicle"

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?


you would also be operating a vehicle
"unregistered/uninsured" as you have nothing
in your possession or in the car which
states that you have authority to operate
the vehicle in your possession nor that
you have any documents indicating proper
insurance coverage...

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.





As far as your insurance policy coverage
extending to anyone and everyone you
desire, no way, a casual user who drives
your car once or twice in a year is one thing,
but you can not allow someone regular use
of your vehicle without providing their information
to your insurance provider and that can effect
the price of your policy...



Again, you would know it if you had a fleet
vehicle policy where the listing of specifically
approved users for each covered vehicle
would be impractical as the patterns of use
change daily and authority is granted by
one's status as an employee with a valid
driver's license and clean driver's history...
Those cost a lot of money, you would know
it for sure if you had such a policy...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And as usual, now we're off into space, talking
about fleet policies. Does Derby have a fleet?

" wrote:
On Jul 21, 8:19 pm, Evan wrote:
On Jul 20, 3:41 pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:

"Additional driver not signed on contract.

What if I just allow them to drive without adding them on the
contract?

Failure to add someone on the contract could result in the car being
impounded if stopped by the police."

Maybe that's just fluff, or maybe the police really could impound the
car, for which they must have a legal reason.

Yes, the legal reason is that you as the contracted
(rental) user of the vehicle do not have legal authority
to determine who can and can not use the vehicle,
only its owner, the rental company can do that...

That is why all persons who will or could be driving
the rental vehicle should be listed as additional
authorized operators... There are different laws in
different states but since you are not the legal
registered owner of the vehicle your decisions and
directives as far as who can use it are meaningless...

It is a crime of varying severity to be operating a
motor vehicle without authority and connected to
it are various offenses such as uninsured operation
of a motor vehicle -- as if you are not authorized
by the owner to operate it and have no proof
available at the scene of the accident/traffic stop
to prove you have specific insurance coverage
for that driver on that vehicle it is big trouble...

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?


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.

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 00:42:55 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
wrote:

"Doug" wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 12:38:43 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03


In addition, when I was talking to my Ins Co, there was no mention of which
rental agency I was using. That tells me the the situation is the same
across all rental agencies.


Or they didn't know so they wouldn't say??? Seems to me you're
asking for legal advice and should seek a lawyer if it really worries
you that much or just do as the car rental said authorize in writing
the other drivers and that ends your worries.


Obviously you haven't read this thread very carefully. I have already said
that I am planning to authorize and pay for additional drivers.

Everything else in this thread has been nothing more than a lively
discussion. Why would I possibly need to talk a lawyer? To save a few bucks
on car rental? Gimme a break.

Also just a heads up but if you ask your insurance agent a question
and they don't know, ask them to ask their underwriters.

Obviously you haven't read this thread very carefully. In every post I have
used the terms Ins Co or insurance company. I have not been talking to an
agent. As a matter of fact I was talking to at least a 2nd level
representative of my Ins Co customer service department. 1st level was not
sure of the answer and said "Hang on while I get in touch with someone
knowledgable in that area." I am very confident that the person I spoke to
was knowledgable with regards to my coverage as it applies to rental
vehicles. For all I know I _was_ talking to an underwriter.


Sure.

Salut, mais visit here
http://www.brahim.n.nu

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

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.

Read it again. If the car is being used in the commission of a crime,
they don't have to pay.

DerbyDad03 wrote:

The point is that you can't just let anyone drive the rental just by
handing them the keys and expect the rental agency not to care. They want
to know who will be operating the vehicle that they own. If it was your car
wouldn't you want to know who was driving it?

Bingo! And if you don't, be prepared for any excuse the insurance
company has not to pay if an incident occurs.

DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Jul 20, 8:13*pm, G. Morgan wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Jul 20, 7:14*pm, G. Morgan wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote:
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
of bills.

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
not.

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.

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.

Peace,
~G