On Jul 22, 12:10*am, DerbyDad03 wrote:
" 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.

What you actually said in the first post is this:

"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."

Which is open to all kinds of interpretations and it doesn't
even use the word "authorized" or by whom. My interpretation,
since they specifically said that FROM A POLICY STANDPOINT
THEY WOULD BE COVERED, that means that if that unlisted
driver has an accident you ARE COVERED. It would be
a lie for them to say coverage exists, when if it does not
all they have to say is "No". The "legal
perspective" could mean that you are still open for any
legal problems, like the possibility of the police impounding
the car because they believe the unlisted driver stole it.
Or the rental company coming after you for the extra $25
Or the rental company extra insurance you took out not
applying because you didn't list the driver, etc.

On another level, I'm not sure that whole exchange even
makes sense because the agent talks about the unlisted
driver being covered. I'm not sure any driver I lend my
car to is ever covered themselves, personally, are you?
Let's say I lend my car to my
friend Joe. He gets into an accident. Now from a practical
matter it may not matter that much because the party
he hits is going to go after anyone and everyone.
But let's take a hypothetical case where for whatever
reason instead of suing me as the car owner, the
other party chose to sue only Joe. I'm not sure
my insurance company would have anything to do
with it. They are protecting ME, not Joe.

Or going with the above example, suppose after Joe
has the accident, the other party feels they are out
$100K. They come after everybody. Might not my
insurance company negotiate a settlement ending
MY case as the car OWNER with them for say $75K.
And then Joe would still be open for the remaining
$25K.? Or would my insurance company fully
protect ME and Joe and refuse to settle until both
are relieved of responsibility? IDK, but some
interesting questions.....

And of course what they told you on the phone isn't
worth spit. If you want something more definitive,
then I would:

A - read the whole policy and see what it says.

B - send the exact question to the insurance company
in writing and get a writen response.








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.

That isn't what your first post says. What you really need to
do is get a straight answer in writing from your insurance
company.

On 07/21/12 10:50 PM, wrote:
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.


Perhaps we should all keep the bigger picture in mind:

An accident.

It seems a waste of time to discuss the "monetary damages" of the fee
that didn't get paid if an operator isn't listed.

It seems a waste of time to discuss the issue of an unlisted operator
gets pulled over by the police and the car getting impounded. Even on
the off chance that that happens, I don't see the monetary consequences
being substantial.

The only real monetary issue that matters is whether an Ins Co would pay
for damages if that unlisted operator is involved in an accident.

Since my Ins Co has said that there might be legal issues that would
prevent them from covering an unlisted operator it's not worth trying to
save a few hundred on the rental contract by not listing all drivers.

Once again, I keep going back to this:

My Ins Co makes no money if I list the drivers or not. In fact, it will
cost them money if a listed operator is involved in an accident. So why
would they tell me to make sure I list all operators?

Since they don't make any money by telling me to list all Operators, but
may indeed have to pay out, the only reasonable conclusion is that there
is in fact a legal way for them to get out of paying for the accident
and they are trying to protect me, their customer, from a huge debt.

In other words, they are doing the right thing.

On Jul 22, 1:13*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On 07/21/12 10:50 PM, wrote:





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.

Perhaps we should all keep the bigger picture in mind:

An accident.

It seems a waste of time to discuss the "monetary damages" of the fee
that didn't get paid if an operator isn't listed.

I agree, but someone else brought up the issue of damages
to the rental car company by you not listing the other drivers.
And being out that money is the only damage I can see.
That was why I went there.





It seems a waste of time to discuss the issue of an unlisted operator
gets pulled over by the police and the car getting impounded. Even on
the off chance that that happens, I don't see the monetary consequences
being substantial.

I agree. But it is an example of where the unlisted driver and you
could wind up with some additional expenses, if the car got pulled
over and impounded.



The only real monetary issue that matters is whether an Ins Co would pay
for damages if that unlisted operator is involved in an accident.

I agree.



Since my Ins Co has said that there might be legal issues that would
prevent them from covering an unlisted operator it's not worth trying to
save a few hundred on the rental contract by not listing all drivers.


But from what you have told us the insurance company said, they didn't
say that. They said "All I can say is that from a policy perspective
they would be covered,
but from a legal perspective they might not be."

Which isn't clear at all. If the insurance company believes they
might
not be covered then you would expect them to say "They might not be
covered", period. And the freaking insurance company should know as
this must come up frequently. It's not some highly improbable
hypothetical.




Once again, I keep going back to this:

My Ins Co makes no money if I list the drivers or not. In fact, it will
cost them money if a listed operator is involved in an accident. So why
would they tell me to make sure I list all operators?

Did the actually say those words? And if they did, the reasons could
be that they don't want to encourage you to cheat the rental car
company. And they know that like we've discussed here, there
are other possibilities where you might be out time, money etc,
ie that traffic stop scenario.



Since they don't make any money by telling me to list all Operators, but
may indeed have to pay out, the only reasonable conclusion is that there
is in fact a legal way for them to get out of paying for the accident
and they are trying to protect me, their customer, from a huge debt.

I don't understand that reasoning. If they are indeed interested in
protecting you, all they have to do is cover the other driver, whether
listed or not. Instead they gave you some jumbled up crap. Probably
because whoever you got to doesn't know the real answer. And
surely they do because this has to happen all the time.




In other words, they are doing the right thing.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The right thing in my book would be to cover you regardless of
whether you listed them or not, provided they are otherwise a
licensed driver. I mean, suppose at the counter the rental person
forgets to ask about additional drivers? What happens then
if you later let someone otherwise authorized drive the car and
they kill a nun? Your insurance company just says, too bad?
At the same time, insurance companies will pay out if a listed
driver gets drunk, goes 90mph and kills the nun? MAkes no
sense to me.

" wrote:

What you really need to do is get a straight answer in
writing from your insurance company.

Actually, all I need to do is pay the rental agency the AAO fees and list
the drivers on the contract.

As soon as we (my family and l) decide how many drivers we'll want balanced
against the cost, that's what I'm going to do. That way at least I'll know
that all operators are authorized by the rental agency and covered by my
insurance.

We may now let this thread die a peaceful death.

On Jul 22, 3:44*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:
" wrote:

What you really need to do is get a straight answer in
writing from your insurance company.

Actually, all I need to do is pay the rental agency the AAO fees and list
the drivers on the contract.

As soon as we (my family and l) decide how many drivers we'll want balanced
against the cost, that's what I'm going to do. *That way at least I'll know
that all operators are authorized by the rental agency and covered by my
insurance.

We may now let this thread die a peaceful death.


Here's an interesting angle. What happens if you leave the keys in
the
ignition of a rental car at the 711 while getting a coffee. A crook
steals it, causes $50k in damages to the rental car and another
car they hit.. Is you insurance company on the hook
for that one? I say yes.

Now, suppose you don't add any drivers when you rent the car because
you think no one else will be driving the car. While you are having
breakfast, junior takes the keys to the car and goes out and has the
same accident. Is your insurance company on the hook for that
one? I say yes.

Now if you agree that they are on the hook for this last example,
then let's say you don't add junior as a listed driver, even though
you know that he will drive it. It would be very difficult for the
insurance company to prove you knew about it, participated in it,
etc. Junior just says "Gee, I just assumed I could use it and it
would be OK".

Now Evan will tell you that all hell is gonna rain down on junior,
That he's committed a serious crime, the unauthorized used of
a car. I say it's highly doubtful he's committed a crime. And
even if it's possible under some law, there ain't a prosecutor in
a thousand miles that would waste his time on this nonsense.

So, if you feel confident that the insurance company will cover
you if junior uses the car without your knowing, without your
approval, then you may have your practical answer.

" wrote:
On Jul 22, 1:13 pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:

Since they don't make any money by telling me to list all Operators, but
may indeed have to pay out, the only reasonable conclusion is that there
is in fact a legal way for them to get out of paying for the accident
and they are trying to protect me, their customer, from a huge debt.

I don't understand that reasoning. If they are indeed interested in
protecting you, all they have to do is cover the other driver, whether
listed or not. Instead they gave you some jumbled up crap. Probably
because whoever you got to doesn't know the real answer. And
surely they do because this has to happen all the time.


The reasoning is quite easy to understand, at least to me.

You are speculating that the person I talked to, a person my question was
escalated to when the 1st level customer service rep didn't know that
answer, also didn't know the answer.

I condensed a much longer conversation down to just few lines in my OP.
Since I spend a lot of time dealing with customer service departments from
many, many companies, including my own, I'm pretty good at being able to
tell when the rep is making stuff up as they go along vs. when they
actually know what they are talking about.

I choose to speculate that she actually did know the answer to my question
and that it is this: She knows that in certain situations the lawyers for
the Ins Co can step in and tell the claims department to deny the claim.
Since, as you say, this happens all the time, then she may very well be
aware that in certain situations unlisted operators of rental vehicles are
denied coverage. However, unless it was an actual case where all the
details are known as opposed to a very simple hypothetical situation (e.g.
No other details were discussed other than an unlisted operator being
involved in an accident) she can't say with 100% certainty that my simple
hypothetical situation would be covered or not.

So she does the right thing and advices me to have all operators listed.
This advice gives me a much higher chance of every incident being covered
and less chance of the lawyers overriding the claims department due to an
unauthorized operator.

Look, everything here is hypothetical and unless we're all sitting around a
table with knowledgeable representatives from the Ins Co and rental agency,
and probably a few lawyers too, discussing the exact details of a specific
incident, we'll never resolve these questions.

The easiest and safest thing for me to do is to simply list and pay for any
and all operators that might be reasonably expected to operate the vehicle
while under contract.

" wrote:
On Jul 22, 3:44 pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:
" wrote:

What you really need to do is get a straight answer in
writing from your insurance company.

Actually, all I need to do is pay the rental agency the AAO fees and list
the drivers on the contract.

As soon as we (my family and l) decide how many drivers we'll want balanced
against the cost, that's what I'm going to do. That way at least I'll know
that all operators are authorized by the rental agency and covered by my
insurance.

We may now let this thread die a peaceful death.


Here's an interesting angle. What happens if you leave the keys in
the
ignition of a rental car at the 711 while getting a coffee. A crook
steals it, causes $50k in damages to the rental car and another
car they hit.. Is you insurance company on the hook
for that one? I say yes.

Now, suppose you don't add any drivers when you rent the car because
you think no one else will be driving the car. While you are having
breakfast, junior takes the keys to the car and goes out and has the
same accident. Is your insurance company on the hook for that
one? I say yes.

Now if you agree that they are on the hook for this last example,
then let's say you don't add junior as a listed driver, even though
you know that he will drive it. It would be very difficult for the
insurance company to prove you knew about it, participated in it,
etc. Junior just says "Gee, I just assumed I could use it and it
would be OK".

Now Evan will tell you that all hell is gonna rain down on junior,
That he's committed a serious crime, the unauthorized used of
a car. I say it's highly doubtful he's committed a crime. And
even if it's possible under some law, there ain't a prosecutor in
a thousand miles that would waste his time on this nonsense.

So, if you feel confident that the insurance company will cover
you if junior uses the car without your knowing, without your
approval, then you may have your practical answer.

Well, this one's easy.

So, if you feel confident that the insurance company will cover
you if junior uses the car without your knowing, without your
approval...

I don't.

Evan wrote:
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...

It's simple enough to ask your insurance company about where you are going to
visit.

On Jul 22, 4:50*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:
" wrote:
On Jul 22, 3:44 pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:
" wrote:

What you really need to do is get a straight answer in
writing from your insurance company.

Actually, all I need to do is pay the rental agency the AAO fees and list
the drivers on the contract.

As soon as we (my family and l) decide how many drivers we'll want balanced
against the cost, that's what I'm going to do. *That way at least I'll know
that all operators are authorized by the rental agency and covered by my
insurance.

We may now let this thread die a peaceful death.

Here's an interesting angle. *What happens if you leave the keys in
the
ignition of a rental car at the 711 while getting a coffee. *A crook
steals it, causes $50k in damages to the rental car and another
car they hit.. *Is you insurance company on the hook
for that one? * I say yes.

Now, suppose you don't add any drivers when you rent the car because
you think no one else will be driving the car. *While you are having
breakfast, junior takes the keys to the car and goes out and has the
same accident. * Is your insurance company on the hook for that
one? * I say yes.

Now if you agree that they are on the hook for this last example,
then let's say you don't add junior as a listed driver, even though
you know that he will drive it. *It would be very difficult for the
insurance company to prove you knew about it, participated in it,
etc. *Junior just says "Gee, I just assumed I could use it and it
would be OK".

Now Evan will tell you that all hell is gonna rain down on junior,
That he's committed a serious crime, the unauthorized used of
a car. *I say it's highly doubtful he's committed a crime. *And
even if it's possible under some law, *there ain't a prosecutor in
a thousand miles that would waste his time on this nonsense.

So, if you feel confident that the insurance company will cover
you if junior uses the car without your knowing, without your
approval, then you may have your practical answer.

Well, this one's easy.

So, if you feel confident that the insurance company will cover
you if junior uses the car without your knowing, without your
approval...

I don't.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well then, I'd find another insurance company.
Because if they are going to not cover a claim when
someone uses your car without your permission, then
you're wide open to all kinds of possibilities.

On Sunday, July 22, 2012 5:17:00 PM UTC-4, Bob F wrote:
Evan wrote:
> 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...

It's simple enough to ask your insurance company about where you are going to
visit.

What has that go to do with anything?

The issue is not location specific, it's about insurance coverage for unlisted additional drivers.

On Jul 23, 2:43*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Sunday, July 22, 2012 5:17:00 PM UTC-4, Bob F wrote:
Evan wrote:
> 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...

It's simple enough to ask your insurance company about where you are going to
visit.

What has that go to do with anything?

The issue is not location specific, it's about insurance coverage for unlisted additional drivers.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


His response about asking the insurance company about different states
was in response to Evan raising the issue that your suto policy might
not have sufficient limits for another state.

As usual, this is another one of those drifts off into the lala land
of Evan.
Yeah, it's theoretically possibly. But everyone I know has high
enough
limits that there isn't a state where your policy doesn't meet the
minimums.

" wrote:
.

So, if you feel confident that the insurance company will cover
you if junior uses the car without your knowing, without your
approval, then you may have your practical answer.

Well, this one's easy.

So, if you feel confident that the insurance company will cover
you if junior uses the car without your knowing, without your
approval...

I don't.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well then, I'd find another insurance company.
Because if they are going to not cover a claim when
someone uses your car without your permission, then
you're wide open to all kinds of possibilities.

How you went from a discussion about my Ins Co saying an unlisted driver of
a rental vehicle might not be covered to thinking that they won't cover
someone driving *my* car is beyond me.

A rental vehicle is not *my* car. That's one of the major discussion points
of this thread and why the rules differ. I don't have to get anyone's
permission to let anyone drive *my* car but I do need to get the rental
agency's permission to let anyone but me drive the rental.

Surely you understand that difference.

On Jul 23, 10:30*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:
" wrote:
.

So, if you feel confident that the insurance company will cover
you if junior uses the car without your knowing, without your
approval, then you may have your practical answer.

Well, this one's easy.

So, if you feel confident that the insurance company will cover
you if junior uses the car without your knowing, without your
approval...

I don't.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well then, I'd find another insurance company.
Because if they are going to not cover a claim when
someone uses your car without your permission, then
you're wide open to all kinds of possibilities.

How you went from a discussion about my Ins Co saying an unlisted driver of
a rental vehicle might not be covered to thinking that they won't cover
someone driving *my* car is beyond me.

A rental vehicle is not *my* car. That's one of the major discussion points
of this thread and why the rules differ. I don't have to get anyone's
permission to let anyone drive *my* car but I do need to get the rental
agency's permission to let anyone but me drive the rental.

Surely you understand that difference.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

One of the key parts of auto insurance is it
protects me if someone steals my car and runs over a nun. Or if
my nephew, who happens to be visiting, decides to take it out one
night without my permission and runs over a nun. My policy covers a
rental car if someone steals it and kills a nun. It would seem to
me
that it would be one hell of a hole if they did not cover me if that
nephew who was traveling with me decided to take the car out while I
was having breakfast, without me knowing and without being on the
rental
contract and kills a nun. If you follow your theory on that one,
that
the insurance company can walk away from it,
you better list all the people traveling with you as drivers. And
that
will be a problem when you get to the 14 year old that doesn't have
a drivers license.

That was the point.

" wrote:
-

One of the key parts of auto insurance is it
protects me if someone steals my car and runs over a nun.

Protects you from what? Did you run over the nun? How are you liable for
anything that happens after someone steals your car?

Stolen without permission from:

http://www.thegreerlawfirm.com/faqs/...en-vehicle.cfm

Q : What Happens If Someone is Killed or Seriously Injured by the Driver of
a Stolen Vehicle?

A: Drivers of stolen vehicles have less regard for the safety of their
fellow citizens than other drivers. They often run stop signs and red
lights at a high rate of speed, thereby putting other people at risk. When
an accident occurs, the vehicle they were driving is not covered by an
insurance policy, because the driver was driving without permission of the
owner. It is unlikely the driver of the stolen vehicle has any other
insurance policy available to him. Therefore, the injured parties must
look to their own insurance for compensation.

See the same type of answer (actual multiple answers) he

http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/if...un-698777.html

Note the line in the paragraph I quoted that says:

"When an accident occurs, the vehicle they were driving is not covered by
an insurance policy, because the driver was driving without permission of
the owner. "

This takes me back to what I have said numerous times. I do not own the
rental vehicle. If I let my son operate the vehicle without them being
listed, he would be driving the vehicle without the permission of the
owner, therefore, not covered by my policy.

Or if
my nephew, who happens to be visiting, decides to take it out one
night without my permission and runs over a nun. My policy covers a
rental car if someone steals it and kills a nun.

Again, covers you for what? What did *you* do?

it would seem to me that it would be one hell of a hole if they did not cover me if that
nephew who was traveling with me decided to take the car out while I
was having breakfast, without me knowing and without being on the
rental
contract and kills a nun.

It's not a hole, it just a fact.

On Jul 24, 8:50*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:
" wrote:

*-



One of the key parts of auto insurance is it
protects me if someone steals my car and runs over a nun.

Protects you from what? Did you run over the nun? How are you liable for
anything that happens after someone steals your car?

Stolen without permission from:

http://www.thegreerlawfirm.com/faqs/...eone-is-killed...

Q : What Happens If Someone is Killed or Seriously Injured by the Driver of
a Stolen Vehicle?

A: Drivers of stolen vehicles have less regard for the safety of their
fellow citizens than other drivers. They often run stop signs and red
lights at a high rate of speed, thereby putting other people at risk. When
an accident occurs, the vehicle they were driving is not covered by an
insurance policy, because the driver was driving without permission of the
owner. *It is unlikely the driver of the stolen vehicle has any other
insurance policy available to him. *Therefore, the injured parties must
look to their own insurance for compensation.

See the same type of answer (actual multiple answers) he

http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/if...and-involved-i...

Note the line in the paragraph I quoted that says:

"When an accident occurs, the vehicle they were driving is not covered by
an insurance policy, because the driver was driving without permission of
the owner. "


Go back to the example I first gave when I brought
this up. I said suppose you stopped at the 711 for
coffee, left the keys in the car, and the car is stolen.
Under that scenario, you are potentially liable because
your negligence contributed to what happened. Or
suppose even worse, you left the car running while
getting that coffee. In those cases, I can see the
nun suing you and winning. Those cases are
different than the car being stolen when parked
locked on the street.

And it's my understanding that MY policy would cover
me for that 711 example.



This takes me back to what I have said numerous times. I do not own the
rental vehicle. If I let my son operate the vehicle *without them being
listed, he would be driving the vehicle without the permission of the
owner, therefore, not covered by my policy.

But from your own report, your insurance company
never said those words. They gave you some
cryptic answer that essentially said yes, no, maybe.
You interpreted that as them "protecting" you.
Protecting you from them apparently. But I would
interpret that answer as the insurance company
simply not wanting to get involved in getting you
into OTHER potential legal trouble.

What you asked them was if it's OK to cheat the rental car
company out of the additional fee they are entitled
to if you have others drive the car. Would you
expect any insurance company to just say
"Why yes sir, it's perfectly OK with us for you
to go ahead and cheat that rental company
and not list those drivers?"

At the same time, the insurance company knows
there are other bad things that can happen to
it's policy holder, due to doing that. Legal problems
like the car being pulled over for a traffic stop,
driver isn't on rental contract, police can't verify
who they are, and impound the vehicle. I would
think that is what the insurance company is
trying to protect you from.



Or if
my nephew, who happens to be visiting, decides to take it out one
night without my permission and runs over a nun. *My policy covers a
rental car if someone steals it and kills a nun.

Again, covers you for what? What did *you* do?

Left the keys available to the nephew, didn't properly
secure the car, knowing the nephew was a little urchant
with a penchant for getting into trouble are some
examples of what I could have done that would leave
me open for liability.





it would seem to me that it would be one hell of a hole if they did not cover me if that
nephew who was traveling with me decided to take the car out while I
was having breakfast, without me knowing and without being on the
rental
contract and kills a nun.

It's not a hole, it just a fact.

Yes, the facts are that you can be sued and plaintiffs
can win under the scenarios I gave you. And if your
policy didn't cover these, it would be a potential
serious hole in the policy. But I say my policy does
cover me for these scenarios.

And again, if you think your policy does not, then
you're open to taking the hit personally in the
above scenarios. We could go on to expand
this to the rental car, but unless you agree with
the above scenarios, it's pointless.

I think mostly insurance companies are now covering the loss if your car is stolen. But they have some different terms and conditions under which they pay you for your losses.
What your stock broker doesn’t want you to see