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.

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.

Curious if this is allowed under state insurance law or just a rental
company contract policy? I've never heard of such a thing.

You might contact the state insurance commissioner for clarity.

On Jul 20, 2:40*pm, Oren wrote:
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.

Curious if this is allowed under state insurance law or just a rental
company contract policy? I've never heard of such a thing.

You might contact the state insurance commissioner for clarity.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, it did seem to flow smoothly from the Ins Co rep saying that
there might be a "legal" issue with coverage to the rental agent
explaining it in a way that took "policy coverage" out and brought the
"legal status" of the vehicle in.

I had not mentioned the Ins Co comment to the rental agent until after
he explained the stolen vehicle matter. After I did he said
(paraphrasing) "That's why she couldn't answer the question directly.
It would be up to the rental agency to first deem the contract null
and void which would remove the "rental status" from the vehicle, at
which point it would no longer be covered. Until that happens, the Ins
Co would have to cover it."

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.

What a crock, but I guess the rental companies have
to dream up something to try to force you to add additional drivers.
If it's a "crime" they would have to
report it to the police. If they are truthful and report
the actual facts, there is no way any police dept is going
to consider that a "stolen" car and pursue charges.

There must be plenty of instances of folks letting someone else drive
that was not "authorized" that
got into an accident. How you would find them so
you could see what happens, I don't know.

My best guess is that if you are NOT relying on the
car company for either liability insurance or collision
insurance and you have a policy that covers your
family for any cars they drive, that it's not going to
matter. except in some possibly extreme cases.
For example, if the driver not on the contract kills
a bus load of nuns, it exceeds your policy limit,
they sue the rental company and you, the rental
company might be off the hook. But then I would
think they are pretty much off the hook anyway,
unless they committed some negligence in relation
to what they did.

Now if you took out insurance with the rental company
and then allowed someone not on the contract to drive,
I would expect they may say the insurance does not
cover that driver and loss.

On 7/20/2012 1:00 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
....

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.

Well, I think that's probably an overstatement of it becoming a "stolen
vehicle" but undoubtedly in worst-case scenario their lawyer legal
begals will be looking for any out they can dream up (and I wouldn't put
a whole lot of trust that my insurance company would be just
volunteering to go to bat for me, either) to minimize their cash
outlay/liability.

So, the last part is always true--just how much risk do you feel like
taking on to save another couple-hundred bucks? Of course, "accidents
never happen to me" (until they do)...and the world is full of cases
where somebody has gotten bit seriously. OTOH, there are a whole lot
more somebodies who did something like that and got away with it
unscathed..."no good deed goes unpunished" may have play here even if
the "punishment" is simply writing a bigger check.

--

I agree. This is a question of whther the additional cost is benefit
enough for the rare case where you need it. I envision 2 scenarios for
needing the extra drivers covered. One, you're making a long trip and
would like to share the driving duties. Two, each of you four would like
to "borrow" the car for your own individual purpose on your vacation,
without necessarily all of you as passengers. In the former case, if
something went wrong, you could claim feeling sick, and not fully up to
driving, and you (plural) needed to get from point A to point B that day.
"Force majeure". In the latter case, I'd make sure to get all the
insurance you can.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

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

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...

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

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...

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:51:59 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

Well, it did seem to flow smoothly from the Ins Co rep saying that
there might be a "legal" issue with coverage to the rental agent
explaining it in a way that took "policy coverage" out and brought the
"legal status" of the vehicle in.

I had not mentioned the Ins Co comment to the rental agent until after
he explained the stolen vehicle matter. After I did he said
(paraphrasing) "That's why she couldn't answer the question directly.
It would be up to the rental agency to first deem the contract null
and void which would remove the "rental status" from the vehicle, at
which point it would no longer be covered. Until that happens, the Ins
Co would have to cover it."

Seems the rental contract would have it spelled out as to when they
could void the contract. I have no clue :-\

I would not guess a "crime" would be committed. As the other poster
mentioned -- requires a report to police for Grand Theft Auto, a
Felony.

On Jul 20, 2:51*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Jul 20, 2:40*pm, Oren wrote:





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.

Curious if this is allowed under state insurance law or just a rental
company contract policy? I've never heard of such a thing.

You might contact the state insurance commissioner for clarity.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, it did seem to flow smoothly from the Ins Co rep saying that
there might be a "legal" issue with coverage to the rental agent
explaining it in a way that took "policy coverage" out and brought the
"legal status" of the vehicle in.

I had not mentioned the Ins Co comment to the rental agent until after
he explained the stolen vehicle matter. After I did he said
(paraphrasing) "That's why she couldn't answer the question directly.
It would be up to the rental agency to first deem the contract null
and void which would remove the "rental status" from the vehicle, at
which point it would no longer be covered. Until that happens, the Ins
Co would have to cover it."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

They can probably deem PARTS of the contract null and void.
They most likely can't deem the whole thing void and prevail.
Just because someone breeches part of a contract usually
doesn't meant the whole thing goes out the window.

What they can't do is turn it into a stolen car, because
it's not. IMO, it doesn't even meet the level of
"unauthorized use", which is a lesser crime involving
a car. In most cases to convict on that you have to show that
the person KNEW they did not have the permission
of the owner. Easy defense is, "Dad was paying the
rental company and I thought I was authorized."
Isn't a jury in the US that would convict, either.

I predict this thread will quickly exceed the # of posts
in the thread about that failing apart door.....

On Jul 20, 2:55*pm, "
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.

What a crock, but I guess the rental companies have
to dream up something to try to force you to add additional drivers.
If it's a "crime" they would have to
report it to the police. * If they are truthful and report
the actual facts, there is no way any police dept is going
to consider that a "stolen" car and pursue charges.

I'll have to spend a little more time reading the rental contract, but
I did find 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."

If it *could* result in being impounded, then the police would need a
reason (and a law?) allowing them to impound it, wouldn't they?

As I said in my response to Oren, the Ins Co did hint at a "legal
issue" with coverage of un-authorized drivers but didn't go into the
details. However, the rental agent mentioned the "stolen car" status
without knowing what my Ins Co had told me.

I look at it like this, at least at this point:

1 - There has to be some reason behind the Ins Co saying "the policy
would cover any driver but a "legal issue" might prevent coverage"

2 - The rental agent did toss out a situation that supposedly changes
the legal status of the vehicle.

Therefore, maybe the two statements are indeed connected.

However, I will point out once again that the rental agent did in fact
say he has not heard of it actually happening in a long time, but that
it *could* happen, in a worst case scenario.

On Jul 20, 3:17*pm, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:51:59 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03

wrote:
Well, it did seem to flow smoothly from the Ins Co rep saying that
there might be a "legal" issue with coverage to the rental agent
explaining it in a way that took "policy coverage" out and brought the
"legal status" of the vehicle in.

I had not mentioned the Ins Co comment to the rental agent until after
he explained the stolen vehicle matter. After I did he said
(paraphrasing) "That's why she couldn't answer the question directly.
It would be up to the rental agency to first deem the contract null
and void which would remove the "rental status" from the vehicle, at
which point it would no longer be covered. Until that happens, the Ins
Co would have to cover it."

Seems the rental contract would have it spelled out as to when they
could void the contract. *I have no clue :-\
....
Note: Everything I say is just specualtion - I'm not convinced of
anything, one way or the other, yet.


I would not guess a "crime" would be committed. As the other poster
mentioned -- requires a report to police for Grand Theft Auto, a
Felony.

Well, no one would be aware that a crime had been commited until they
were aware that an unauthorized driver was driving. That probably
wouldn't happen until the accident happened.

You can't file a stolen car report until you know the car was stolen.

If I'm sleeping and someone steals my car from my driveway and has an
accident, I wouldn't have known to report the car stolen until after I
get the call that my car was involved in an accident. At that point
the stolen car report could be made. I don't see why that would be any
different with a rental agency.

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.

On Jul 20, 3:18*pm, "
wrote:
On Jul 20, 2:51*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:





On Jul 20, 2:40*pm, Oren wrote:

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.

Curious if this is allowed under state insurance law or just a rental
company contract policy? I've never heard of such a thing.

You might contact the state insurance commissioner for clarity.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, it did seem to flow smoothly from the Ins Co rep saying that
there might be a "legal" issue with coverage to the rental agent
explaining it in a way that took "policy coverage" out and brought the
"legal status" of the vehicle in.

I had not mentioned the Ins Co comment to the rental agent until after
he explained the stolen vehicle matter. After I did he said
(paraphrasing) "That's why she couldn't answer the question directly.
It would be up to the rental agency to first deem the contract null
and void which would remove the "rental status" from the vehicle, at
which point it would no longer be covered. Until that happens, the Ins
Co would have to cover it."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

They can probably deem PARTS of the contract null and void.
They most likely can't deem the whole thing void and prevail.
Just because someone breeches part of a contract usually
doesn't meant the whole thing goes out the window.

What they can't do is turn it into a stolen car, because
it's not. *IMO, it doesn't even meet the level of
"unauthorized use", which is a lesser crime involving
a car. *In most cases to convict on that you have to show that
the person KNEW they did not have the permission
of the owner. * Easy defense is, "Dad was paying the
rental company and I thought I was authorized."
Isn't a jury in the US that would convict, either.


....

I predict this thread will quickly exceed the # of posts
in the thread about that failing apart door

Are we counting posts in just the latest "Sagging Door" thread or will
we be combining the posts from all three related threads?

On Jul 20, 3:12*pm, Han wrote:
I agree. *This is a question of whther the additional cost is benefit
enough for the rare case where you need it. *I envision 2 scenarios for
needing the extra drivers covered. *One, you're making a long trip and
would like to share the driving duties. *Two, each of you four would like
to "borrow" the car for your own individual purpose on your vacation,
without necessarily all of you as passengers. *In the former case, if
something went wrong, you could claim feeling sick, and not fully up to
driving, and you (plural) needed to get from point A to point B that day.
"Force majeure". *In the latter case, I'd make sure to get all the
insurance you can.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

It really is just for the 15 hour drive to and from our destination.

Once we're there, I don't see a need for multiple drivers, especially
for the cost.

I did find out this additional piece of information:

I can add drivers at any time just by stopping by a rental office, but
once they are added, I can't take them off until the contract end
date.

In other words, I can't put them on for the trip down, take them off
for the week and then add them on for the trip back.

I can however, just add them on for the trip back if I'm totally
exhuasted from a week of fun and sun.

I'm still working on some other discount codes to reduce the overall
cost, so we'll see what happens.

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 12:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Evan
wrote:

when you cross state lines...

Be careful with this. The cars have GPS tracking now.

A guy rented a car in California, never telling the rental agency
about his intention to drive out of state. He drove to Las Vegas.

They whacked him hard, more money, on his credit card. They know where
you go... now days.

On Jul 20, 3:32*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Jul 20, 2:55*pm, "
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.

What a crock, but I guess the rental companies have
to dream up something to try to force you to add additional drivers.
If it's a "crime" they would have to
report it to the police. * If they are truthful and report
the actual facts, there is no way any police dept is going
to consider that a "stolen" car and pursue charges.

I'll have to spend a little more time reading the rental contract, but
I did find 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."

If it *could* result in being impounded, then the police would need a
reason (and a law?) allowing them to impound it, wouldn't they?

They could impound it on the SUSPICION of it being
stolen because the driver can't produce documents
showing they are authorized to be driving it. That's
a lot different than the rental car company declaring it
to be "stolen" after an accident and you telling them
that it was not stolen, just your son driving it.





As I said in my response to Oren, the Ins Co did hint at a "legal
issue" with coverage of un-authorized drivers but didn't go into the
details. However, the rental agent mentioned the "stolen car" status
without knowing what my Ins Co had told me.

I look at it like this, at least at this point:

1 - There has to be some reason behind the Ins Co saying "the policy
would cover any driver but a "legal issue" might prevent coverage"

I'd say the reason are they can't forsee all the possible
circumstances, you're asking a legal question of some
phone person that could be in India, these companies
prefer to give vague answers, and the more you believe
it's dangerous to not name additional drivers the more
$$ they make.



2 - The rental agent did toss out a situation that supposedly changes
the legal status of the vehicle.

Therefore, maybe the two statements are indeed connected.

However, I will point out once again that the rental agent did in fact
say he has not heard of it actually happening in a long time, but that
it *could* happen, in a worst case scenario.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 12:52:23 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 12:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Evan
wrote:

when you cross state lines...

Be careful with this. The cars have GPS tracking now.

A guy rented a car in California, never telling the rental agency
about his intention to drive out of state. He drove to Las Vegas.

They whacked him hard, more money, on his credit card. They know where
you go... now days.

FWIW - a number of years ago before there was the embedded GPS
tracking, my daughter rented a car for a week and wrote that she was
driving to the beach. We live in Central Connecticut so the beach is
an hours drive away. However, she drove to Myrtle Beach, SC and when
she returned the car with a couple of thousand miles on it they asked
her that she wrote she was going to the beach. She replied "I did go
to the beach. But you didn't ask me which one."

So there you have it - drat those gps trackers...

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 call BS on the "stolen car" silliness.

Your lawyer: "Did my client give you money?"
Car rental company: "Yes"
Your lawyer: "And did you give him the keys to the car?"
Car guy: "Yes"
Your lawyer: "Did you wave goodbye as he drove from your lot?"
Car guy: "Yes"
Your lawyer: "Did you immediately or any time thereafter report a stolen
car?"
Car guy: "No"
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?"
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.

DerbyDad03 wrote:

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.

You're getting screwed by the rental company. $24/day extra? That's
crazy.


Except... How old are your sons? If one/both are under 25 that changes
everything. Take the under 25'ers out of the agreement, shouldn't cost
any extra.

Oren wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:51:59 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

Well, it did seem to flow smoothly from the Ins Co rep saying that
there might be a "legal" issue with coverage to the rental agent
explaining it in a way that took "policy coverage" out and brought the
"legal status" of the vehicle in.

I had not mentioned the Ins Co comment to the rental agent until after
he explained the stolen vehicle matter. After I did he said
(paraphrasing) "That's why she couldn't answer the question directly.
It would be up to the rental agency to first deem the contract null
and void which would remove the "rental status" from the vehicle, at
which point it would no longer be covered. Until that happens, the Ins
Co would have to cover it."

Seems the rental contract would have it spelled out as to when they
could void the contract. I have no clue :-\

It becomes void when an unlisted driver, drives it! That's what the
contract says: "who the hell *exactly* is going to be driving this
thing?"

I would not guess a "crime" would be committed. As the other poster
mentioned -- requires a report to police for Grand Theft Auto, a
Felony.

Possession is 9/10ths of the law ;-)

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.

It's a contract, it does not get broken when or if you get *caught*, it
gets broken when an actor goes against the agreement. Even if the car
is returned uneventfully, you still broke the contract. The rental
company won't know it, but you will and so will your family. Kinda a
slippery slope in the financial, legal, and moral aspects.

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 16:37:12 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 12:52:23 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 12:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Evan
wrote:

when you cross state lines...

Be careful with this. The cars have GPS tracking now.

A guy rented a car in California, never telling the rental agency
about his intention to drive out of state. He drove to Las Vegas.

They whacked him hard, more money, on his credit card. They know where
you go... now days.

FWIW - a number of years ago before there was the embedded GPS
tracking, my daughter rented a car for a week and wrote that she was
driving to the beach. We live in Central Connecticut so the beach is
an hours drive away. However, she drove to Myrtle Beach, SC and when
she returned the car with a couple of thousand miles on it they asked
her that she wrote she was going to the beach. She replied "I did go
to the beach. But you didn't ask me which one."

So there you have it - drat those gps trackers...

Ask the rental agency the price of in state rental and prices across
state lines. Compare the price answers now days.

wrote:

What they can't do is turn it into a stolen car, because
it's not. IMO, it doesn't even meet the level of
"unauthorized use", which is a lesser crime involving
a car. In most cases to convict on that you have to show that
the person KNEW they did not have the permission
of the owner. Easy defense is, "Dad was paying the
rental company and I thought I was authorized."
Isn't a jury in the US that would convict, either.

I agree with the probable outcome, if caught.

But is this something you want to teach the kids? That it's okay to
'bend' the rules to save some money? Are you going to be able to relax
while they are out driving in it, and you didn't list them as drivers?
What if they end up in the pokey until you are dragged down there to
sort it out?

Or is this just hypothetical?

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.

On Jul 20, 6:45*pm, G. Morgan wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote:
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.

You're getting screwed by the rental company. *$24/day extra? *That's
crazy.

Except... How old are your sons? If one/both are under 25 that changes
everything. *Take the under 25'ers out of the agreement, shouldn't cost
any extra.

Each additional driver is $3 per day regardless of age
Drivers 20 - 24, add an additional $15 per day ($18 total)
Drivers under 20 - (you might want to sit down) add an additional $41
($44) total

Spouse (25+) $3
Son 1 - (24) $3 + $15 - $15 AAA discount code
Son 2 - (22) $3 + $15

$9 + $15 = $24

Note: They gave me the AAA discount on the young driver even though it
was not a AAA rental. My corporate rate was not only substantially
cheaper than AAA but came with unlimited mileage as compared to 850
miles from AAA. 850 miles barely gets us to where we're going. We'd
have to walk back.

If I can pester them enough to drop the other $15 young driver fee,
I'll go with $9 a day and have the piece of mind of having 4 drivers.
Otherwise, I'm going with $6 and 3 drivers. I'll let the boys fight it
out.

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"?

DerbyDad03 wrote:

If I can pester them enough to drop the other $15 young driver fee,
I'll go with $9 a day and have the piece of mind of having 4 drivers.
Otherwise, I'm going with $6 and 3 drivers. I'll let the boys fight it
out.

I think that's best for your wallet and peace of mind. g

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.

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.

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

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.

That's nuts. Forget about adding AAOs.

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.

No, it doesn't, and that doesn't make a lick of sense. If the
contract is voided you'd be off the hook for the rental fee.

If a contract may simply be declared void by one party I've wasted a
lot of money on lawyers.

Since it would no longer be a
rental vehicle, but technically a vehicle involved in a crime, it
might not be covered by your policy."

Since there is no crime...
-----

- gpsman

On 7/20/2012 7:05 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 16:37:12 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 12:52:23 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 12:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Evan
wrote:

when you cross state lines...

Be careful with this. The cars have GPS tracking now.

A guy rented a car in California, never telling the rental agency
about his intention to drive out of state. He drove to Las Vegas.

They whacked him hard, more money, on his credit card. They know where
you go... now days.

FWIW - a number of years ago before there was the embedded GPS
tracking, my daughter rented a car for a week and wrote that she was
driving to the beach. We live in Central Connecticut so the beach is
an hours drive away. However, she drove to Myrtle Beach, SC and when
she returned the car with a couple of thousand miles on it they asked
her that she wrote she was going to the beach. She replied "I did go
to the beach. But you didn't ask me which one."

So there you have it - drat those gps trackers...

Ask the rental agency the price of in state rental and prices across
state lines. Compare the price answers now days.

Here in Canuckistan, crossing into certain US states is a minimal charge
yet crossing into others is a fortune. Each state seems to have
different insurance requirements from a Canadian perspective.

And each Rental car company has a different rate for each scenario as well.

Also my insurance policy will not cover health care expenses if I rent a
car and drive in New York State but the same insurer covers me in Michigan.

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.

On Jul 20, 4:47*pm, "HeyBub" 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.

I call BS on the "stolen car" silliness.

Your lawyer: "Did my client give you money?"
Car rental company: "Yes"
Your lawyer: "And did you give him the keys to the car?"
Car guy: "Yes"
Your lawyer: "Did you wave goodbye as he drove from your lot?"
Car guy: "Yes"
Your lawyer: "Did you immediately or any time thereafter report a stolen
car?"
Car guy: "No"
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.





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.

On Jul 20, 6:45*pm, G. Morgan wrote:
DerbyDad03 wrote:
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.

You're getting screwed by the rental company. *$24/day extra? *That's
crazy.

Except... How old are your sons? If one/both are under 25 that changes
everything. *Take the under 25'ers out of the agreement, shouldn't cost
any extra.

You don't actually rent cars, do you? It's general
practice for rental companies to charge extra for
additional drivers. The majors, Hertx, Avis, Enterprise
all do it.

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:51:59 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Jul 20, 2:40Â*pm, Oren wrote:
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. Â*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.

Curious if this is allowed under state insurance law or just a rental
company contract policy? I've never heard of such a thing.

You might contact the state insurance commissioner for clarity.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, it did seem to flow smoothly from the Ins Co rep saying that
there might be a "legal" issue with coverage to the rental agent
explaining it in a way that took "policy coverage" out and brought the
"legal status" of the vehicle in.

I had not mentioned the Ins Co comment to the rental agent until after
he explained the stolen vehicle matter. After I did he said
(paraphrasing) "That's why she couldn't answer the question directly.
It would be up to the rental agency to first deem the contract null
and void which would remove the "rental status" from the vehicle, at
which point it would no longer be covered. Until that happens, the Ins
Co would have to cover it."
If you have "non owned vehicle coverage" from your insurer, you
don't need to buy insurance from the rental company - and if your
coverage covers all of your drivers as named insured on YOUR vehicles,
they are all covered on the "non owned" as well.

Good luck to the insurance company claiming it is a "stolen vehicle"
unless it is not returned at the end of the rental agreement - whether
in 1 piece or 10.

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

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 12:41:39 -0700 (PDT), 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.

That is correct, if you, the contract holder, is not in the car. The
police have no way of knowing the car is not stolen and the driver is
authorized to use it, insured or not. The contract states Bob is the
authorized driver. Tom, however has the car, but no evidence the
rental company is allowing his to drive it. Quick call to the rental
company confirms Bob is the driver and they have no idea who Tom is.

It may turn out ok, but can be a PITA until you do.

If that person is in an accident, insurance coverage is OK, assuming
usual terms and they are a policy holder, etc. .

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.

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 12:41:39 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:


You can't file a stolen car report until you know the car was stolen.

If I'm sleeping and someone steals my car from my driveway and has an
accident, I wouldn't have known to report the car stolen until after I
get the call that my car was involved in an accident. At that point
the stolen car report could be made. I don't see why that would be any
different with a rental agency.


Daughter's boyfriend got a call 4 montha ago from the local Law
Enforcement Agency - "do you own a 2005 Chrysler 300?"
He said yes. They asked where it was. He said on the driveway. They
said "You better check". It wasn't there. It was found in an adjoining
city, wrecked and burning. He had both sets of keys

He had made the mistake of dealing with a BANK instead of an insurance
company for his insurance. He had full coverage, babied the car - it
was like brand new- and they are still dragging their feet about
paying. They have both police departments chasing their tails
investigating - sounds like they are trying to prove he HAD it stolen,
or wrecked and burned it himself. At any rate, they are trying REAL
HARD to get out of paying for the loss!!!

Meanwhile he's still making car payments (different bank than the
company insuring it) and he's driving my wife's old car which we were
going to scrap when we bought her latest one - a few weeks after his
loss. He paid for renewing the plates, and is covering our out of
pocket insurance costs - my daughter being an insurance broker we made
sure he is on as the primary driver.

He'll deal with a broker next time!!!
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.

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.

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?

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.