Are we, as a country, at 'Terminal Entitlement?"

[lovinthehd]

Is it only the "terminally entitled? would try to get out of this? No one else would try?

Especially a poor car dealer, I always empathize with them....LOL

 

[lovinthehd]

It’s even national ‘Terminal Entitlement’ level.

And only whining about dudes whining about car rental insurance is on topic for national ‘Terminal Entitlement’ as other posts are deleted.

Compared to maga types, these guys are amateurs

 

[jinjuku]

Especially a poor car dealer, I always empathize with them....LOL

The car dealer doesn't have to try to get out of anything. If they have your car for service and take it for a test drive and cracked your windshield would they call you up and tell you to call your insurance?

Nope. They would replace the windshield.

 

[lovinthehd]

The car dealer doesn't have to try to get out of anything. If they have your car for service and take it for a test drive and cracked your windshield would they call you up and tell you to call your insurance?

Nope. They would replace the windshield.

LOL I've seen stories where the dealer wanted no responsibility at any time, and have had some pretty bad experiences myself. If they provided me with a replacement car without insurance I'd either know about it up front and deal with my own, or otherwise expect the dealer to run it through their insurance for something like a stone hitting a windshield (which in my limited experience is an easy insurance claim).

 

[jinjuku]

LOL I've seen stories where the dealer wanted no responsibility at any time, and have had some pretty bad experiences myself

Any party can try and tow any line that they want. You can wish in one hand and poop in the other and see which one gets full first.

If a shop has your car they are responsible for it unless you signed away their liability and that may not even be enforceable in all cases.

I've even heard of places doing oil changes and running the car without oil trying to weasel out of doing the right thing. Still doesn't change the fact that if you're responsible for a vehicle your responsible. The absurdity that they are there for profitability therefore should just pay, that they deign to be profit motivated *gasp*. The horror.

 

[lovinthehd]

Any party can try and tow any line that they want. You can wish in one hand and poop in the other and see which one gets full first.

If a shop has your car they are responsible for it unless you signed away their liability and that may not even be enforceable in all cases.

I've even heard of places doing oil changes and running the car without oil trying to weasel out of doing the right thing. Still doesn't change the fact that if you're responsible for a vehicle your responsible. The absurdity that they are there for profitability therefore should just pay, that they deign to be profit motivated *gasp*. The horror.

Tow? Pooping? If you have a shop car does that automatically make you fully responsible for insurance matters?

 

[jinjuku]

Tow? Pooping? If you have a shop car does that automatically make you fully responsible for insurance matters?

It makes you responsible for any damages that occur while in your possession. If you get in a wreck and it's the others drivers fault, their insurance handles it. If it's your fault your insurance handles it.

No different than if you were driving your own car.

Now if the car suffers a mechanical failure that would be handled under the cars warranty since loaners are new vehicles.

 

[lovinthehd]

It makes you responsible for any damages that occur while in your possession. If you get in a wreck and it's the others drivers fault, their insurance handles it. If it's your fault your insurance handles it.

No different than if you were driving your own car.

Now if the car suffers a mechanical failure that would be handled under the cars warranty since loaners are new vehicles.

I just don't see it cut and dried as the driver's deal myself.....does the electronic contract he signed stipulate the driver is fully responsible for any damages? That there's no inherent insurance with the vehicle?

 

[jinjuku]

I just don't see it cut and dried as the driver's deal myself.....does the electronic contract he signed stipulate the driver is fully responsible for any damages? That there's no inherent insurance with the vehicle?

Ok, used to install DMS (dealer management systems) with sub-vendor contract with IBM at Chrysler dealers. I'm going out Tuesday to a Jag and Porsche dealer to install a DMS.

There are kiosks that customers transact business on and I'm telling you dealerships don't hand out keys to loaners willy nilly. The borrower is taking on a liability.

There is inherent insurance with the vehicle. The lenders to the dealers require it. They are also required, if they aren't self insured, to mitigate any reasonable risk. A reasonable risk is a 3rd party driver that's not named on your floor plan like an employee would be.

If you take a car out for a test drive and run a red light and T-bone another vehicle YOUR the insured. Not the dealer. If you're insurance doesn't cover the entire damages then the dealer has to lean on their comprehensive coverage and/or under-insured.

I've yet to test drive a car that didn't require my license and proof of insurance. Think hard about why they want proof of insurance.

 

[lovinthehd]

Ok, used to install DMS (dealer management systems) with sub-vendor contract with IBM at Chrysler dealers. I'm going out Tuesday to a Jag and Porsche dealer to install a DMS.

There are kiosks that customers transact business on and I'm telling you dealerships don't hand out keys to loaners willy nilly. The borrower is taking on a liability.

There is inherent insurance with the vehicle. The lenders to the dealers require it. They are also required, if they aren't self insured, to mitigate any reasonable risk. A reasonable risk is a 3rd party driver that's not named on your floor plan like an employee would be.

If you take a car out for a test drive and run a red light and T-bone another vehicle YOUR the insured. Not the dealer. If you're insurance doesn't cover the entire damages then the dealer has to lean on their comprehensive coverage and/or under-insured.

I've yet to test drive a car that didn't require my license and proof of insurance. Think hard about why they want proof of insurance.

Okay, but what were the specifics in this case? Are they actually recorded as facts? Don't see that a road hazard like a rock kicking up is particularly a driver issue....unless one wants to sue the idiots who created the condition....which is more what the basic insurance company needs to do. I really have trouble understanding your whine here....

ps "Your", seriously?

 

[jinjuku]

Okay, but what were the specifics in this case? Are they actually recorded as facts? Don't see that a road hazard like a rock kicking up is particularly a driver issue....unless one wants to sue the idiots who created the condition....which is more what the basic insurance company needs to do. I really have trouble understanding your whine here....

ps "Your", seriously?

1st off: Your (possessive) as in the you are the dealer. Yes seriously.

The specifics is that the person signed a contract and the clerk said 'don't get in any wrecks and bring it gassed up like you found it'. The borrower signed on a kiosk. That pretty much tells me they were the liable party, Just like if you just rented from AVIS.

My observation, not whine, is that fully half the thread thinks the default mitigator is the dealers insurance and not the drivers. My State Farm insurance follows the driver. I know this because I rented uhauls on weekends for 3 months to get moved and I called them and I'm covered on any non-commercial vehicle (no semi's, FEDEX, UPS etc) so personal use.

That when you reverse the scenario and it's the individuals car that took damage while in the dealers possession it's crickets.

I occasionally have $100,000 worth of network gear that I have a separate rider from my employer for because that's a commercial carry and I have non-commercial personal policy.

 

[lovinthehd]

1st off: Your (possessive) as in the you are the dealer. Yes seriously.

The specifics is that the person signed a contract and the clerk said 'don't get in any wrecks and bring it gassed up like you found it'. The borrower signed on a kiosk. That pretty much tells me they were the liable party, Just like if you just rented from AVIS.

My observation, not whine, is that fully half the thread thinks the default mitigator is the dealers insurance and not the drivers. My State Farm insurance follows the driver. I know this because I rented uhauls on weekends for 3 months to get moved and I called them and I'm covered on any non-commercial vehicle (no semi's, FEDEX, UPS etc) so personal use.

That when you reverse the scenario and it's the individuals car that took damage while in the dealers possession it's crickets.

I occasionally have $100,000 worth of network gear that I have a separate rider from my employer for because that's a commercial carry and I have non-commercial personal policy.

Got a copy of the contract? Is a road hazard an actual driver responsibility? (I don't have any experience in this, the only time I had a windshield problem the insurance replacement was super easy)

 

[Eppie]

OP stated they signed an electronic agreement.

I didn't have time to read the reddit post. Most agreements assign liability to the driver, like when you rent a car. You either pay extra for their insurance or you use your coverage or a credit card that has automatic coverage. If the driver in the reddit post signed an agreement stating he assumed liability, then he is just a whiner. If you rent a car from Avis and the windshield takes a rock, your insurance covers it, not theirs. They can even bill you if there is just a minor dent.

Most dealerships with a repair department will require a signature for a loaner. I do know of some small privately run shops that keep a couple of 'beaters' around in case someone needs a loaner and they sometimes just throw you the keys if you're a regular customer. In lieu of no agreement the insurance would be on the car but someone who has used the same mechanic for many years would be more prone to offer to cover any damage.

 

[jinjuku]

In lieu of no agreement the insurance would be on the car but someone who has used the same mechanic for many years would be more prone to offer to cover any damage.

Correct and it's worth pointing out that some will self insure their loaner's and it's just rolled into the cost of doing business. If your floor plan is financed including loaners, dealers are at the behest of the financier and their insurance requirements.

 

[jinjuku]

Got a copy of the contract? Is a road hazard an actual driver responsibility? (I don't have any experience in this, the only time I had a windshield problem the insurance replacement was super easy)

Avis, Hertz etc all sell 'Road Hazard' and 'Flat Tire' protection.

 

[Trell]

Avis, Hertz etc all sell 'Road Hazard' and 'Flat Tire' protection.

So you don't know what the contract said.

 

[jinjuku]

So you don't know what the contract said.

I don't know what the individual contract said. But if you are here to 'sell' that their wasn't a liability transfer in in it... Good luck with people believing you.

Just google 'Dealer vehicle loaner agreement'. Recurring theme is 'You assume liability, bring YOUR insurance'.

 

[highfigh]

Sounds like he didn't want that accident on his record with his insurance company.

If the guy is at fault, it's going on his record regardless of whose insurance is involved. A driver is the source of the risk the insurer is betting against.

 

[highfigh]

Avis, Hertz etc all sell 'Road Hazard' and 'Flat Tire' protection.

Tire shop road hazard coverage is often seen as a scam, but I can say that it's a good thing, from experience. If the driver of a loaner is on the hook for tire damage, it may not be a bad thing if it's not expensive AND their insurance isn't a requirement.

Car owners need to really know what their policy covers- many have no idea.

 

[jinjuku]

Tire shop road hazard coverage is often seen as a scam, but I can say that it's a good thing, from experience. If the driver of a loaner is on the hook for tire damage, it may not be a bad thing if it's not expensive AND their insurance isn't a requirement.

Car owners need to really know what their policy covers- many have no idea.

Agreed. Many policy holders don't understand their coverage and restrictions and what they need to purchase additionally. I'm in the midwest. If we get hit by an earthquake or hurricane we are SoL.