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

[safristi]

How Enterprising................................

[Snowman]

So therefore they should all be open 24/7 or give you a day free. I only rent/return at the airport to avoid this kind of silliness.

At a major airport that is fine, try that in Whitehorse or Thompson. That is why I have an AMEX Platinum...not my problem.

[Fobroader]

So therefore they should all be open 24/7 or give you a day free. I only rent/return at the airport to avoid this kind of silliness.

At a major airport that is fine, try that in Whitehorse or Thompson. That is why I have an AMEX Platinum...not my problem.

I rent everything on the gold Visa from work....my thinking exactly, not my problem.

[The Mighty Duck]

She took the RISK and LOST.  Why is everyone so upset about her circumstances?

Leaving the car parked in a bad part of town with the keys in the ignition is taking a risk.

Leaving the a car at Enterprise's rental location, with the keys in their possession, is not.


 

[ArticSteve]

Leaving the a car at Enterprise's rental location, with the keys in their possession, is not.


Despite a notice stating the opposite.  I dunno ppl, I guess a combination of being in retail, watching Harponi and the Fat Man take zero responsibility for absolutely anything, and the increasing Canadian nanny state have left me critical of my fellow socialists. 

[sailor723]

So therefore they should all be open 24/7 or give you a day free. I only rent/return at the airport to avoid this kind of silliness.

At a major airport that is fine, try that in Whitehorse or Thompson. That is why I have an AMEX Platinum...not my problem.

I wouldn't be 100% sure about that. This woman had her own insurance from what the article said but they declined to cover the theft, saying  the car was no longer in her posession when it happened. I don't know if it was from a premium credit card. I do remember being told by the rental company (when I decline their insurance) that I'd be personally liable if my insurance declined coverage for any reason. (THat's when I got the policy from Amex and read it pretty carefully) I could see a company refusing the claim in a case like this.

[ArticSteve]

What this lady should have taken out is an insurance policy for stupidity, legally known as "errors and omissions" insurance.

If you participate in this current "gottcha", no prisioners type environment, you can't reliably go thru life as a DOPE.  Tees crossed, I's dotted.  That's the way life today is folks.  Otherwise the machine will flatten you.

Pay attention to the fine print as just mentioned.  The fine print has the same legality as the big print.  If you read that if you do X you may have a problem, take it as a FACT.  If you rent from Alamo/National in the USA for example, and if it's a "luxury" which is hardly that, your spouse cannot be added as an additional driver.  Makes no sense.  But that's the contract you are signing so don't be shocked if things go upside down if the wife has an accident.  Don't assume your regular insurer will step up.       

[PJ]

Leaving the a car at Enterprise's rental location, with the keys in their possession, is not.


Despite a notice stating the opposite.  I dunno ppl, I guess a combination of being in retail, watching Harponi and the Fat Man take zero responsibility for absolutely anything, and the increasing Canadian nanny state have left me critical of my fellow socialists. 

There are legal covering their butt warnings on absolutely everything.  Even if you read them all you will not be covered as lawyers will intepret them in a way that best suits their needs and those of their clients.

If I returned the car as per the staffs instructions then it is no longer my responsibility.  The insurance companies can argue all they want over who pays but that's their job.

[tenpenny]

And despite what some people say, just because a contract says something, it may not be enforceable.  Just because the rental agreement says she's responsible, a court may find different because she followed the instructions of the company.

It would make an interesting case, it's not as cut and dried as some like to think.


Sent from my Vic20 using Java Moose

[ArticSteve]

she followed the instructions of the company.


"Keep in mind that a sign prominently displayed on the key drop-box reminds customers that the vehicle remains their responsibility until it can be checked in by an employee."

Maybe she's legally blind.  That defense could possibly work ..... that and $100K in legal fees.

[PJ]

she followed the instructions of the company.


"Keep in mind that a sign prominently displayed on the key drop-box reminds customers that the vehicle remains their responsibility until it can be checked in by an employee."

Maybe she's legally blind.  That defense could possibly work ..... that and $100K in legal fees.

You know I've rented more cars then I can remember over the past 30 years and don't remember  ever seeing this "prominently displayed sign".   Haven't been to this dealer but I have my doubts.  In the end she followed instructions and common practice that the car rental  companies put in place just like countless other people including you likely. 

The warning sign is a contradiction and not valid.  They cannot instruct you to do something that will make you liable when it is to their benefit. 

[ArticSteve]

In the end she followed instructions and common practice that the car rental  companies put in place just like countless other people including you likely. 


Most dealerships have a key slot usually near the front service door.  Guess what ours say "Not responsible for lost or stolen keys or vehicles, use at own risk".

What part of "use at own risk" do you not understand 

[tenpenny]

In the end she followed instructions and common practice that the car rental  companies put in place just like countless other people including you likely. 


Most dealerships have a key slot usually near the front service door.  Guess what ours say "Not responsible for lost or stolen keys or vehicles, use at own risk".

What part of "use at own risk" do you not understand 

Use at your own risk has no legal meaning.  In the event of an incident, a court will determine who bears the loss.

Put up all the signs you want, it means nothing in reality, although it might convince some people that they're in the wrong, and therefore convince them not to push the issue.  That's why your lawyers and insurance company want you to put the signs up. 


Sent from my Vic20 using Java Moose

[ArticSteve]

Use at your own risk has no legal meaning.  In the event of an incident, a court will determine who bears the loss.


Yes, the court system determines the final outcome of a litigation.  This is not new.  Fact is that very few ppl have the resources to bring an action to court.

Disclaimers and notices warning of risk of course have legal meaning.   Every parking lot in the country are covered by these.  They only become vulnerable when negligence can be proved.

No negligence, no tort.

[CanuckS2K]

The good thing is that they are getting absolutely slammed on their FB page, as they totally should be.  Even if they get compensated the $47k, which I highly highly doubt they will, they are going to lose WAY more $$$ than that with the backlash and loss of customers. 

[tooscoops]

convenience comes at a cost... the fact that you can even rent a convertible for a weekend is a convenient luxury... the fact that they allow you to drop it off and do what they can to protect the keys is all a reasonable person can expect. if you don't want to run that risk, then you'd better drop the car off monday morning, or just not take a car in the first place.

i'm sure this will be settled with out the lady paying from her pocket one way or another... i'd love if it ended up being discovered that she left it unlocked or something else that puts the negligence on her. see how many people still keep backing her up on fb or wherever. people still will of course... always want to back up the individual, even if they are in the wrong.

[CanuckS2K]

^ Why would she return it on Monday when it was due back on Sunday?

[johngenx]

This is a case of where the company might be at an advantage legally, but in terms of bad press, they're just digging a deeper hole by the minute.

[tooscoops]

many of the times when the term ends on a day they are closed, you can bring it back the next morning before noon.

again... convenience.

if she was charged an added day since she wanted the car on a weekend and they are closed on sunday, she'd that she could have returned it and only wanted 2 days. after all, it's not her fault they aren't open sunday.

i'm only on the rental's side because i just got in a pissing match with a customer who thinks we are the devil because service is only open until noon today. people don't get that they are not the center of the universe... sometimes you will have to sacrifice some of your time to do things... sometimes you will have to pay extra for things... sometimes you have to take a gamble on dropping off keys and just hope...

[CanuckS2K]

ts, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.  In my mind, she returned the car on the day that it was due and she followed all of THEIR instructions for the drop off.  Nothing more could be asked of her.  Either Enterprise should invest in a little security for their lot or not even offer the after hours drop off service. 

Enterprise is getting a HUGE amount of backlash for this, and it's for a good reason IMHO.