Topic: Enterprise tries to charge woman for car stolen AFTER she had returned it!

[Fobroader]

If I had to return it on a Sunday I would opt for their insurance addon to cover everything.

The lady got cheap.  She probably drives an ordinary car at best.  Her rate of insurance will not be enough to cover a Mustang GT plus tax.  If you rent for 2 days why not pay $40. for all perils insurance. 

My question is who had the extra keys made? Was it towed away and the alarm shut off when the front end was hoisted?

Was it an employee? Was it her?


This is the guts of it.  I think the reporters involved should be banned from the business for life.  Could not someone ask about a security camera     The fact that it was stolen seems so incidental to both her and the media.

The only thing that is gonna save this lady is that she is packing a great set.   If it ever gets to court the Judge is gonna take one look at those and say ... case dismissed.

Maybe he took it......

[tooscoops]

the thief will be found and nothing ever mentioned.... but this company that hasn't done anything against the law... nothing against the ten freakin commandments... nothing that they didn't have paperwork and signs proclaiming to be policy, is being hung out to dry.

as i've said... i do think it's shitty and i doubt they'll not be on the hook, but come on... a crime has been committed, and enterprise is not the perpetrator. 

[rrocket]

The only thing that is gonna save this lady is that she is packing a great set.   If it ever gets to court the Judge is gonna take one look at those and say ... case dismissed.

Pics? Vid? I don't see video anymore. Must see what she's packing!

[tortoise]

Scroll down on the right side.  It's a ways down there by now.

[rrocket]

Scroll down on the right side.  It's a ways down there by now.

My device only shows 4 vids on rh side. No scrolling

[ArticSteve]

Scroll down on the right side.  It's a ways down there by now.

My device only shows 4 vids on rh side. No scrolling

You'll be disappointed I' sure.

When I first saw the vid I thought why not wear something plain Jane, particularly with a last name that starts with C**K.  Almost the entire VID is a close up of her face.  Camera guy was thinking the same thing.  Just saying. 

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Business/ID/2428135139/

[JamesS]

There is something rotten in this whole situation - and despite comments here about her appearance - she should hire a lawyer immediately to prevent Enterprise going after her card, bank account and pay check.  Enterprise needs to rethink this situation as they run the risk of losing out big time in the long run.

[Noto]

yeah I'm not reading 5 pages, but I will weigh in and I know much of this has already been said:

The rental contract may not be fair, but by signing on the line, you agree to it.  Enterprise personnel are trained to describe the contract before getting signatures - in my experience, this is always done (even for frequent renters).  Yes, Enterprise is closed from noon Saturday until Monday morning at 7:30am (typically).  You are able to 'drop-off' the vehicle while they are closed, but until the employee signs off on the vehicle, post-inspection, the vehicle remains in the care and control of the renter (and if she places the keys in a drop-box, that's akin to leaving the keys on her kitchen counter - it's still in her control).  This is clearly stated in the contract.

No, Enterprise is under no duty to have cameras covering its lots.  It may be intelligent, or even something their insurer would like, but it is not their 'duty'.

No, the contract isn't 'unfair'.  She had the option of returning it during business hours for no additional cost.  You cannot choose a rental period to end during non-business hours, so she was paying for the car until Monday anyway.  To drop it off while Enterprise is closed is a risk assumed by the consumer, and it's a stupid risk.

This is as clear as day.  She is liable, and no media publicity should or will be able to save her.  I hope Enterprise litigates this all the way through to trial, wins, and gets a cost award paid to them by the renter.

Boo me all you want, but could someone applaud me to balance it out?  thanks

[tortoise]

What about her insurance company then?  If you'd actually read the thread you would have found most of us in agreement with you (could have saved some typing) and that the real debate is whether insurance should be footing the bill.

[wing]

your missing the insurance part.  If your opinion is true and should be the answer her insurance should pay.

Keys on her counter or in their box is the same, then her insurance covers it.  If not then the other insurance covers it -- at no point should credit cards be involved.

[Noto]

True - but I'm at work and try to sneak in some posts...I can't read 5 pages worth of thread.

My concern is who is liable - and I know that she is.  When you say "her insurance"...are we talking about the insurance you purchase through Enterprise, one on a credit card, or her personal auto insurance?

Whether or not an insurer pays is dependent on the contract.  I haven't read hers, so I can't say with any certainty.  What "should" happen?  Well, first, after-hours drop-offs need to no longer be allowed.  More realistically, Her personal car insurance has insured her against a certain number of perils...one of which is automotive theft.  The issue becomes that the insurer is only offering such protection based on provided material information.  The value of the vehicle, for example, is a material fact.  If she normally drives a 5 year old Civic with a value of $8,000, then she'd be asking her insurer to cover triple the value of her car with no increase in her premiums.  I believe that's contrary to the idea of an insurable interest.

If it's Enterprise's own insurance, then it again depends on the wording of the contract, but I believe they should cover the cost of it if she opted for that insurance.  Same idea if her credit card provided the insurance.

...but if it's her own personal insurance, I do not believe they should foot the bill.

[ArticSteve]

yeah I'm not reading 5 pages, but I will weigh in and I know much of this has already been said:

The rental contract may not be fair, but by signing on the line, you agree to it.  Enterprise personnel are trained to describe the contract before getting signatures - in my experience, this is always done (even for frequent renters).  Yes, Enterprise is closed from noon Saturday until Monday morning at 7:30am (typically).  You are able to 'drop-off' the vehicle while they are closed, but until the employee signs off on the vehicle, post-inspection, the vehicle remains in the care and control of the renter (and if she places the keys in a drop-box, that's akin to leaving the keys on her kitchen counter - it's still in her control).  This is clearly stated in the contract.

No, Enterprise is under no duty to have cameras covering its lots.  It may be intelligent, or even something their insurer would like, but it is not their 'duty'.

No, the contract isn't 'unfair'.  She had the option of returning it during business hours for no additional cost.  You cannot choose a rental period to end during non-business hours, so she was paying for the car until Monday anyway.  To drop it off while Enterprise is closed is a risk assumed by the consumer, and it's a stupid risk.

This is as clear as day.  She is liable, and no media publicity should or will be able to save her.  I hope Enterprise litigates this all the way through to trial, wins, and gets a cost award paid to them by the renter.

Boo me all you want, but could someone applaud me to balance it out?  thanks

 

Nice points, particularly regarding the apparent lack of a security tape.  Hard to believe because that Enterprise franchise will either be self insured or have a very high deductible (10-20K per occurrence).   I bet when that office normally parks that GT they do it such a way that if can't be easily towed out. 

I suspect some funny business from inside that office.  That they knew that lady was going to return the car on the Sunday and that she would probably park it facing the office so it could be lifted up by the *ss end and whisked away.   Also knowing that no security camera was present.

This is just an unfortunate case of the fickle finger of fate.  The woman's "partner", who is most likely credit deficient, talks her into renting the GT.  She does, typically unaware of how the real world works, and then falls prey to some pretty sketchy circumstances.         

[ArticSteve]

The issue becomes that the insurer is only offering such protection based on provided material information.  The value of the vehicle, for example, is a material fact.  If she normally drives a 5 year old Civic with a value of $8,000, then she'd be asking her insurer to cover triple the value of her car with no increase in her premiums.  I believe that's contrary to the idea of an insurable interest.


I already covered that, but I think few ppl grasp that concept when renting.  When renting a vehicle and relying on your own insurance policy you cannot stray to far from your own vehicle's particular rate group.   So even if it's being reported that the woman was no longer in care and control of the GT and as such her own ins. company is taking a powder, they might be also voiding her claim based on the value of the GT vis-à-vis her own policy limits.

   

[tortoise]

What does "stray too far mean"?

That is to ask,  how is it usually stated in one's insurance policy?  I don't remember reading anything specific in mine.

[ArticSteve]

What does "stray too far mean"?

That is to ask,  how is it usually stated in one's insurance policy?  I don't remember reading anything specific in mine.

Good question.  Maybe under "limitations"      Or perhaps it's like when your barn blows down in a wind storm.  They then send a ringer of a structural engineer in that concludes, after he has left your property of course, that it was a structural "defect" and not the wind, hence you're not getting a cent.  That sort of BS.

After all that is the business model of insurance.  Collect the premiums and do the utmost not to pay them out.     

[Noto]

The issue becomes that the insurer is only offering such protection based on provided material information.  The value of the vehicle, for example, is a material fact.  If she normally drives a 5 year old Civic with a value of $8,000, then she'd be asking her insurer to cover triple the value of her car with no increase in her premiums.  I believe that's contrary to the idea of an insurable interest.


I already covered that, but I think few ppl grasp that concept when renting.  When renting a vehicle and relying on your own insurance policy you cannot stray to far from your own vehicle's particular rate group.   So even if it's being reported that the woman was no longer in care and control of the GT and as such her own ins. company is taking a powder, they might be also voiding her claim based on the value of the GT vis-à-vis her own policy limits.

 

But that's where you're wrong; we're not talking about her personal auto insurer trying to deny her coverage based on small print - this goes to the very essence of what insurance is: party A is taking consideration (the insurance premium) to take on a certain risk of a perilous event that may, or may not occur, to Party B (the insured).  If the insurer (Party A) does not have all the necessary information before making a decision on whether or not to insure against that peril, then Party B is misrepresenting her interests.  It goes to the very root of contract law.

And for any argument that the lay person does not grasp the concept when renting, then caveat emptor (buyer beware).  Every time I tell Enterprise that I have insurance through my credit card, I'm warned of its limitations.  Any further action in renting is my own risk.  It's a corporate policy, and any ambiguity as to whether or not that happened to her in this case would go to habit evidence - which is wholly admissible.

Even if you don't accept what I've mentioned above, in which case you're simply denying the law as it stands, then let's look at the box in which she deposited the key, shall we?
"Key Drop...Vehicles returned after hours are the responsibility of the renter until inspected on the next business day"

...so if the vehicle is not there on the next business day, someone else backs into it in the parking lot, etc., then the vehicle is "the responsibility of the renter until [it is] inspected on the next business day."

My credit card insurance expressly states that I am insured for vehicles "with a manufacturer’s suggested retail price, excluding taxes, over $65,000 at the time and place of loss;"
...see page 8 - "Types of Vehicles Not Covered":
http://www.capitalone.ca/media/doc/canada/gold-platinum-mastercard-benefits.pdf?Log=1&EventType=Link&ComponentType=T&LOB=MTS%3A%3ALCTMMBESH&PageName=Delta+Skymiles+Gold+Credit+Benefits&PortletLocation=4%3Bca-12-col%3B1-13-1-1&ComponentName=Download+the+gold+mastercard+benefits%3B4&ContentElement=1%3BDownload+the+Gold+MasterCard+Benefits%3Cbr+%2F%3E%0ACertificates+of+Insurance+(2.77mb+PDF)&TargetPageName=%2Fmedia%2Fdoc%2Fcanada%2Fgold-platinum-mastercard-benefits.pdf

...so my credit card would cover me fully in this case - and it's a no fee credit card   Using your own auto insurer provides third party property and personal injury insurance, but not necessarily damage to the automobile if it exceeds the value of your own car.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

This story pretty much summarizes the problems with Canadian contract law.

Access to affordable legal help is simply out of reach of the vast majority. Corporations rely on this to take advantage of people by using multiple page contracts full of incomprehensible legalese. It is absolutely stacked against an average person. When newspapers are written to an 8th grade level, there is simply no way an average person will really understand the terms of most contracts.

So they have to rely on whoever the company representative is to explain it to them. The rep is under no obligation to accurately represent what is actually in the contract. "Sure drop it off whenever. It'll be fine". The car gets boosted, and the agent reverts back to "It was in the contract!"

Simple solution: any contract over one typewritten page (8.5"x11") in 12 pt Helvetica must be agreed to by legal counsels representing each side. Nobody will hire a lawyer to rent a car, so they cut out all the legal jargon and have simplified contracts that people would have at least a hope of understanding.

[tooscoops]

the problem i don't feel lies with contract law in this case (though there sure is something to be said for you points!)...

the problem lies with people making up their own rules in complete contradiction to the posted rules and assuming they are somehow special and outside of societies norms. if you don't know the answer to something, ask someone... don't assume the opposite of what is posted directly in front of you because it "makes sense" to you...

[Sir Osis of Liver]

the problem i don't feel lies with contract law in this case (though there sure is something to be said for you points!)...

the problem lies with people making up their own rules in complete contradiction to the posted rules and assuming they are somehow special and outside of societies norms. if you don't know the answer to something, ask someone... don't assume the opposite of what is posted directly in front of you because it "makes sense" to you...

Did the person in question only see the note on the dropbox after she had already already made arrangements to use it? If the rep had told her that it wouldn't be an issue and people use it a lot?

Even the presence of the drop box itself implies that it is a typical way of returning a vehicle. If it was a significant risk, logically, the company wouldn't even have one.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

In the vast majority of cases, reasonableness governs the behaviour of parties rather than strict contractual provisions.

This is true. We deal with clients all the time that want to change scope of work or various terms just to get a project done. Much more often than not, we can come to resolution without getting legal involved, even on projects that aren't going well.

Both sides usually know that once legal gets involved, there are no real winners and a lot of money gets burned for nothing.