Sorry to say, but not only are you going to have to pay Hertz for the damaged rental car, I would fully expect the insurance company of the other driver to sue you for their damages as well since it sounds like you were at fault.
Even if you had insurance on the rental through your credit card, it doesn't appear to cover damages to any other vehicle or injuries so you should not be relying on just that coverage.
> You will be insured to the state minimum through their insurer.
*Hertz* will be insured through their insurer. I can't imagine said insurer won't try to subrogate and sue OP for any damages.
This is not exactly true. Some states the rental company is not required to provide the renter liability insurance. Yes, they carry their own coverage for the car, but state minimums are seriously low and they can and will hold the renter responsible for third party damages.
Without stating the state they rented in, we're all just guessing. If he's in New York or I believe Washington he's in luck. Not the case with Texas or California.
Wouldn't Hertz have third party liability as a compulsory insurance as they own and register the vehicle? Hertz would pay for the third party damaged but OP would have to pay for his own.
I'm not from the US, but if this happens that's BS
The optional insurance here is for your damages made to your vehicle
Damages against a third party, wether it's your fault or not, are covered always. And your insurance can't sue you unless they can prove it wasn't an "accident" (insurance fraud)
As others have said, you don't really have any options.
The limit on the credit card is standard. I'll also add the the credit card, if it provides coverage, will typically only cover the car paid for with the credit card, i.e. the rental. It usually doesn't cover any other car or property that is damaged.
No. It can be, but if the person renting the car declined it, like it sounds as though the OP did, then you have no insurance.
If you don't have insurance, like on your own car that carries over to the rental, then rental companies require you to purchase it from them. I'm sure the OP signed something that said they had coverage. And it sounds like they signed it because they thought they did have it through their credit card. But most credit cards don't have offer liability coverage on rental cars. If anything, they offer collision, and it's limited in amount and for how long.
does home renters insurance with personal worldwide liability protection be something that would cover you, if you just had credit card vehicle coverage? thanks in advance for your thoughts.
OP - this. I was an auto claims adjuster for 8 years.
This is the next step in finding coverage for yourself. If you were on a business trip, even if they didn’t mandate you rent a car, there could be coverage through your employers policy.
Yeah I’d definitely be contacting the employer for this. Regardless of his employment status (even if they’re freelancing), I’d likely be telling the employer about the accident, so no harm in finding out what insurance policies they may have for this scenario. I would think most companies would have liability coverage for employees at least.
Are you at this remote site because this is a work assignment?
I caused a collision while on a business trip, driving a rented car. I rented the car using my credit card with the expectation this would be a reimbursed expense. Thankfully no one was injured but there was damage to both vehicles.
I turned all the other driver's information over to HR and my employer's insurance covered everything.
Yes, if work is paying for the rental they may have coverage covering employee work-related rentals. For example, my work says to decline coverage offered by the rental company because their policy covers company rented vehicles.
Credit cards only cover damages to the rental car itself. Even if you don’t own a car you should have bought short term liability insurance when you began driving to cover damages to the other party & your own injuries in an accident.
Unfortunately it looks like you’re going to get a huge bill when the other non at- fault party comes after you for damages.
It’s coverage that gives you auto insurance during the rental of the vehicle. One is typically offered it at the time of booking the rental, through the rental company. Lots of normal auto insurance agencies offer it as well though.
Right but that’s both right, car and liability if you hit another car. The point is you want to use credit card for car part so you aren’t paying for that twice? You need to waive cdw right to get insurance through the credit card?
I suppose so, tbh I’m not sure. I’ve never bothered with worrying about credit card insurance for a rental and I’ve always had my own auto insurance that covers rentals.
I rent lots for work when I travel. I have coverage on my own insurance that covers vehicles that I don’t own but are driving.
Having no insurance themselves and then still declining rental insurance sounds just absolutely crazy. Leaves you open to so much risk that unfortunately OP is going to come to realize.
Very interesting questions on this. Up to 15 days seems like it'd be open to a number of technicalities.
Not retroactively obviously but couldn't you just rent for 14, return then get a new rental? A hassle but potentially a worthwhile one depending on other expenses and the cost of an extra rider. Never had to rent for more than two weeks so never considered this part.
Credit card coverage only covers collision to the rental car. It doesn’t cover liability or damage to the other car. Using a credit card is not a replacement for car insurance coverage from a reputable company. So even if ops credit card covered longer, op would still be responsible for damage to the other car as well as any injury or other property damage that might have occurred.
That’s why I got an umbrella pulling back when I didn’t own a car.
Non-owner car insurance was way more expensive (supposedly because it is only really purchased by people with DUIs trying to get reinstated).
Just had the agent confirm that the umbrella would immediately kick in, he checked and said it would (the policy minimum didn’t apply since I didn’t own a car), and I got all the other benefits of an umbrella.
Combined with the credit card coverage, this left me fully covered.
Depending on the card, yes you could renew the contract on each limit date. Most cards go anywhere from 28-34 days to make it less of a hassle, but as others have pointed out, no liability on any credit card.
>I've seen a few at 30, but my experience has been that most are 15 days.
Really?! I haven't checked in a while, but most major CC's were all nearer to 30.
Oh man, let’s hope the other party does not go after you for injuries
Just prepare for that scenario where they claim an injury for extra money and their insurance will pursue you for the cost
Hertz's Liability insurance is on the line here. Only other involvement OP would be a deposition as to what happened in the accident. Which probably wont happen because the renter has filled out an accident report with Hertz.
As a owner/operator for a car rental company did I ever get a phone call from our liability insurance carrier. Hey do you have this file back 2 years ago and we are denying this liability claim and you are on the hook for it. THIS NEVER HAPPENED. That's why we had liability insurance and payed hellacious premiums to protect us from our renters accidents.
We got an umbrella when our teenagers started to drive but it’s attached to our car insurance - cost a lot more thru our home insurer.
Wondering now if there’s an upside or downside to having the umbrella attached to either
Yea i hate these “life administration” tasks and would prefer the simplicity of having all policies together but it was something over $500.
I did have home and vehicle together and moved our home policies based on a lower quote from a business coverage provider. basically one was more competitive for home insurance, one was more competitive for car insurance and the umbrella, and the multi policy discounts available with either didn’t cover the difference.
I don’t know if this would help. It might, but also when I took out an umbrella policy I had to prove that I had a certain amount of car insurance coverage and rental insurance and the standards were pretty high.
Edit:my point being that without car insurance and driving I would be surprised if umbrella would cover this-if I dropped my car insurance and was in a crash, my umbrella wouldn’t cover it
I am very curious about this. I had a job that required rental car insurance so they wouldn’t have to pay out in case of an accident.
You should see if (a) you violated work policies -which is a different issue and (b) if they can be on the hook for this.
It doesn't sound like OP was traveling for work so the employer is probably irrelevant. My read of the situation is that OP decided to rent a condo/Airbnb somewhere for a month and work remotely.
It's very easy to underestimate costs to repair damage. What might look like a scratch and a broken mirror could be a lot more hidden damage, like a broken sensor or crushed wiring harness, broken clips, etc. Plus, if somebody hit my perfectly good car I wouldn't be going to the cheapest place to get it "close enough", I want my car back to how it was.
Possibly a fake one but OP said everyone is literally fine and the car is relatively unscathed. How would their description suggest a bodily injury claim?
You would be surprised at what happens in auto claims. I have paid our policy limits for less damage described. A high profile attorney knows how to make any accident bad enough to fool a jury.
A few years ago my friend's elderly relative had an accident in the parking lot at probably less than 5 mph speed. No damage on either cars besides some surface scratches, yet TWO passengers from the other car (that was not moving at the time of this *collision*) sued for thousands in chiropractor bills, "pain and suffering" and such. The driver at fault was 84 and she has not even realized there was an accident.
I honestly don't know if I should laugh at it, or if I should give kudos to all the attorneys involved, or if I should curse at folks who tried to make a quick buck out of it lol.
Buy the exorbitant CDW/LDW even if you have your own liability, credit card coverage, etc. There are so many gaps that can screw you even if they pay out eventually. The loss of use alone while things get adjusted and settled can be huge. CDW usually means you are settled up immediately.
I often refuse upgrades because of increased liability also. Give me the downgrade please.
https://volkinsurance.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Top10forRentalCDW-LDW.pdf
They can only charge for loss of use if every other car they have at that location is rented. If they have one car that is not in use they can not charge loss of use.
OP does not say on what day of his rental the accident occurred. Could have been on day 17, it could have been on day 29. Only that it won't be covered under the limited, 15 day coverage from his credit card.
He already called them and they told him they wouldn't cover him for this incident. They 100% have this noted in his account. Why it matters? They have this technicality covered in the tos:
> • Rental periods that either exceed, **or are intended to exceed**,
fifteen (15) consecutive days, within Your country of residence,
or thirty-one (31) days outside Your country of residence
The credit card company can also see all the charges and how much they are. And they're allowed to use that information against you. It wouldn't be unreasonable at that point for them to ask for a copy of your receipt haha.
I’ve worked at Hertz for several years. Depending on whether or not the vehicle is totaled. You might be able to negotiate with the local manager depending on how far the vehicle was in terms of being retired anyways. It’s kinda hot or miss with managers but mine is very cool about that kinda stuff so it might be worth a try checking with them if nothing else pans out.
This isn't helpful for OP but: If you have a license you need to have car insurance. I, personally, haven't driven in a decade, but I have a non-owner car insurance policy. It's less than $300 a year, and it covers situations like rental cars and if I borrow cars from family members.
Delete this post and lawyer up. INAL, but I work for a company that has a fleet of vehicles. We recently had something similar happen - a driver pulled out in front of one of our vehicles and was t-boned. They were ticketed, their insurance had to pay for our vehicle, etc. but, they lawyered up and filed a civil suit against us after the fact. The computer in our vehicle registered that our driver was going 5 mph over the speed limit before the crash. A judge determined that the “excess” speed could have contributed to the accident not being avoidable, and we were ordered to pay a ridiculously large sum to the person who caused the crash. Total bullshit, but it’s a conceivable out for you.
This is exactly why rental companies offer CDW despite it usually being scoffed at. Should have done your research about credit card coverage, as the scope of their coverage is often very limited. Looks like you unfortunately had to find out the hard way.
Source: was manager at enterprise for years
OP doesn't have a car, doesn't drive often. Declines CDW. ooof. Trying to save a penny and now has a fat bill. Also, please if anyone is reading this and wants to post for help. Give details. Anyways, These are always fun to read.
CDW is rightfully scoffed at for the usual vacation car rental.
Personal credit cards provide coverage for typical personal trips. 15 days is generally more than sufficient. Agreed, OP was renting for business use and needed to make suitable arrangements.
Your POV is understandable as it was a function of generating revenue for your location.
Source: former credit card executive
Here’s some helpful info from Allstate.
[allstate.com > Should you buy extra rental car insurance at the counter?](https://www.allstate.com/resources/car-insurance/rental-car-insurance)
The same thing happened to me in 2015. Luckily I didn't have to pay anything to Hertz but paid out of pocket for the damages that occurred to the other car. I was dumb actually, Hertz wanted to reach out to the other party but I wanted to pay out of pocket to the other party. I was appreciative of the fact that Hertz already taking care of the damages to the rental, and didn't wanna milk further. It might be something in agreement, I dunno. I already had a lot going Stolen motorcycle, Layoff, and Breakup. So paying out of pocket seemed like a lot less painful then lol.
I'd suggest you call customer service, they usually have gap insurance, not sure how that would work in your favor, but I'd ask
I'm astounded that Hertz let you take the car without proof of insurance or buying it with them. Every time I have ever rented, I've had to show my driver's license and proof of insurance.
First off, you never admit that you are primarily fault for an accident. If you were already engaging in the left turn before the oncoming driver was visible, then he should have yielded to you when he arrived to the intersection and saw you making a turn. Admitting fault makes it an open and shut case.
Hertz is going to come after you for the damages, how hard they will come after to you is in the air. They could send you to collections, they could go the legal route, they could tell the dmv you were driving without coverage. Hopefully, you were at least driving a cheaper model car and not one of their luxury models or sports cars.
This is absolutely not true. Unless the OP made a left turn on a green left-turn arrow, and the other driver ran a red light, the OP is most definitely majority at fault. It doesn't matter if the OP was already engaging in the left turn; the driver turning left will always be at least majority at fault. The OP failed to yield while turning left. The driver making a left turn must always yield and has the greater duty to uphold. Shared negligence may sometimes be applied to the driver traveling straight through the intersection (maybe they didn't take evasive action or wasn't maintaining a proper lookout), but depending on the loss state's negligence laws, the OP likely would not be able to collect any settlement. The other driver's insurance company is not likely to put shared negligence on their own driver anyways.
Also, admitting or denying fault has little bearing on a liability investigation. The police will complete their investigation at the scene and determine fault. The insurance company of the other driver will complete their own independent liability investigation and determine fault (The OP's insurance company would as well if they were insured). I have been a claims adjuster for many years, and most people never admit fault even when they blatantly are at fault. Even when they do admit fault, it doesn't change the investigation or the outcome.
Please don't give OP false hope that they are not responsible for this accident or the consequences resulting from it.
It is true. Having the right of way doesn't mean you have the right to plow through somebody who was already there before you. If the OP began his left turn when it was safe and the other driver comes blowing down from the top of the hill and t-bones him, then that driver is absolutely at fault.
That doesn't make sense, if someone is making a "safe" left turn and is somehow hit by a car coming from far away like from a top of a hill then it wasn't safe to begin with. My advice to anyone reading this, please be extra cautious when making left turns.
OP said there were rolling hills. It is possible the car was not visible when he started his turn, and due to excessive speed came into view and hit OP while turning. Road may have a lower limit due to limited vision.
I am sorry but you're wrong. I addressed the possibility of shared negligence in my original reply. If the other driver was speeding through the intersection, then that may be an instance of shared negligence (maybe even a higher amount than typical). But it wouldn't change the fact that the OP is majority at fault for failing to yield while turning left. Speed is a difficult factor to argue and prove in a liability investigation. Just because OP said the other driver may have been speeding doesn't make it true. If the OP never saw the other vehicle before the collision, how could they know they were speeding? A hill that obstructs the OP's view just indicates that the OP should have been even more cautious while turning left.
Agreed. Even if you tried to argue shared negligence you’d have to have some sort of proof. The police report would likely be against OP, the only thing you could use as an argument may be points of impact but it’s still be majority in OP for failing to yield the right of way. Unless there’s an independent witness or camera to say otherwise.
If what they say is true, and they couldn't see the car before they started their turn but it still hit them, how could they have acted more 'cautiously' (while still making the turn)?
Many people think you're supposed to take the left turn from back at the stopping line. You actually want to go past that line and be in the middle of the intersection. That saves time. Then when you take the left, accelerate as fast as possible.
>how could they have acted more 'cautiously' (while still making the turn)?
One way would be to continuing to watch for oncoming traffic as their making the turn and then accelerating quicker to finish their turn and clear the intersection.
Living in the south, I've seen way too many people that will lolligag in the intersection or pull out onto a 55 mph road and not accelerate quickly.
>If you were already engaging in the left turn before the oncoming driver was visible, then he should have yielded to you when he arrived to the intersection and saw you making a turn.
That's not how it works....
In my state the one prevailing rule above all others is "Do whatever necessary to avoid a crash". So if somebody is driving in the wrong lane (yours) and you hold your ground and let them hit you, you're not completely Scott free if you have an opportunity to get out of the lane.
Or at least that's my interpretation of it. I have been known to interpret things badly before ...
The whole point is to avoid a crash, not create another. I was comparing sitting and accepting your fate versus using an out to avoid the crash.
If you had an out and didn't use it, their insurance company may come after you for some % of fault.
Last Clear Chance doctrine
"The doctrine considers which party had the last opportunity to avoid the accident that caused the harm."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/last_clear_chance
What if you want to make a left, there is no oncoming traffic anywhere remotely visible, you start the left so your vehicle now occupies the left half of the road, and then suddenly a pedestrian (who had been stationary on the sidewalk until now) runs out into the crosswalk that you're about to drive over. You must stop in that precarious location until the pedestrian finishes crossing. The pedestrian trips and falls while crossing, or any similar delay like dealing with kids. Oncoming car t-bones you.
Which driver is at fault?
Generally you'd avoid this by "beating" the pedestrian, but technically you must stop the moment the ped occupies the crosswalk, which could easily occur while you are beginning your turn.
If it's a yield left turn, I am at fault for not paying attention to the pedestrian. They have the right of way along with oncoming traffic. If it's a green left, the pedestrian should not be crossing as there is cross traffic and the incoming traffic would have a red light. So they should be stopped.
Green does not mean go. It means verify and check that you are safe to proceed so scenarios like this won't happen.
I am talking about a yield left, not a protected left. And I'm talking about starting the left when there is absolutely no indication of anything to yield to (no oncoming vehicles and no walking pedestrians). Then at the moment when you've started the left (so now oncoming traffic could collide with you) a pedestrian who was stationary darts out into the crosswalk, causing you to stop so long that a vehicle approaches.
Key word there is yield. To oncoming, to pedestrians. There was a pedestrian visible at the crosswalk. Doesnt matter if they are stationary, they could go into motion. If the have a walk signal, they have right of way.
Previous poster said pedestrian was NOT in the crosswalk, say they are at the corner talking on their cell phone.
You start to make the left turn and then they suddenly start crossing in the crosswalk, leaving you hanging out in the middle of the road.
Sounds like you are saying if there is any pedestrian in the area that could legally start to use the crosswalk then you shouldn't start to make a left-turn that requires traversing that crosswalk, if that's the case you could be stuck waiting a long time to make a left turn, e.g. its not a reasonable position to take in the real-world.
Exactly. For some reason, both people arguing with me don't understand that the sequence of events is:
* Starting to turn (nothing indicates a need to yield: no other cars or peds in the road)
* Ped then enters the crosswalk so I stop just short of the crosswalk
* Oncoming vehicle then appears, and t-bones me
They keep incorrectly swapping the order of the first two events around in their heads.
No, we aren't swapping things. It doesn't matter if you start to turn, if the pedestrian has the walk signal they have the right now way. You are on notice that they are there. You see them on the sidewalk.
Edit: You say "nothing indicates a need to yield." That is the flaw in the thinking. It is left turns MUST yield. Not yield only when you think you need to. If you start to turn left thinking its clear, and are wrong, you are at fault.
> If you start to turn left thinking its clear, and are wrong
I start to turn left thinking it's clear and am correct. At a later point in time the situation changes: the pedestrian who previously showed no intent to move from the sidewalk to the crosswalk suddenly does.
This is actually more common in uncontrolled intersections, so consider that context instead if it helps.
Personally I'd just blast thru before I'm truly on a collision course with the ped, but technically I should stop so I'm curious how it would play out if I did.
Hertz has insurance for their vehicle. But hertz’s insurance will go after op for reimbursement, since op doesn’t have insurance. Hertz will be made whole. Having insurance makes this whole thing a company-to-company problem, instead of the company-to-customer problem it currently is. Not to mention, I’m sure op signed something saying that they attest to having insurance coverage or are responsible for cost.
> But hertz’s insurance will go after op for reimbursement
Hertz has auto insurance that has state minimum coverage. Then the person can go after the OP for anything not covered.
Hertz can go after the renter for damage to their vehicle separately.
> If you were already engaging in the left turn before the oncoming driver was visible, then he should have yielded to you when he arrived to the intersection and saw you making a turn.
That's not how right of way works. Yes the practical thing is obviously to stop if you are able, but legally when someone crosses into your lane of traffic you still have right of way and it's the responsibility of the person taking the left to find a gap in the traffic pattern.
Unless the other person has a yield sign or any other traffic control device allow OP to make a left turn, he'd be at fault regardless. Assuming this is the US of course. A traffic crash investigator worth his weight would take a statement from all parties and assess damages and evidence at the scene and would make the conclusion.
Similar situation, I was going left and had a green, proceeded into the intersection to turn. Waited for cars to stop, then proceeded to turn once the light was red and the intersection was clear. Somebody then blew the red (past other stopped cars in neighboring lanes) and slammed into me.
I was cited for failing to yield to a car that ran the red in Ohio.
But you were also running the red light. It doesn't matter if your vehicle was in the middle of the intersection when the light was green. Your vehicle had not completed the left turn by the time the light turned red. You both ran the red light, but you also failed to yield while turning left. You therefore breached at least one more duty than the other driver. I would have also found you at fault.
I didn't run the red light, I was in the intersection before it turned red. In Ohio you're allowed to enter the intersection like that, but you must complete your turn once the intersection is clear.
https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00772.htm
>It’s important to note that Arizona is a comparative negligence state. This means that each person involved in an accident will be held liable to the extent of their negligence or level of responsibility. Even if the other driver was mostly responsible, you could still face liability for any portion of the accident that was your fault.
/u/Zuwxiv
Wouldn't that mean if the other driver was *entirely* responsible, such as in the case of running a red light and hitting someone making a protected left turn, then they would be 100% responsible for all damages?
Of course, this depends how you're determining "mostly" at fault. I've heard (without knowing how true it is) that *in practice,* some places only very rarely assign 100% fault.
> https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00772.htm
This looks like it's in a section describing right of way at an intersection. Does this apply to a protected turn? If there's a protected left turn (green arrow), the oncoming traffic must necessarily have a red light. Are you telling me that, in Arizona, if there are cars waiting at a red light, you *cannot* turn left on a green arrow because you
That seems unlikely? That section seems to be talking about assigning right of way at unprotected left turns.
I could be wrong though, I have no experience or expertise in writing traffic regulations, haha.
First off, I didn’t down vote you, and I am sorry that you are being done so. However, your description of AZ traffic law was quite suspect.
I lived in Tempe, AZ for many years. The citation you provided does not match your example. From my experience, most, if not all left arrow intersections follow a 2-1-2 rule. Using an example of E/W traffic at a 4-way intersection, that rule applies as so:
After n/w traffic ends, East traffic starts with both the Left turn arrow signal and the full green straight traffic lights on.
After a set amount of time, the Left arrow signal changes from green to yellow, and the West traffic gets a full green straight traffic light on.
After another set of time, the East traffic gets all red lights, and the West traffic gets a Left turn arrow at green, on top of the full green straight light.
Then that ends, and the process repeats for n/s.
In your scenario, you thought the other driver ran a red, but they did not. They still had a green. You did not recognize that because you are used to the more common 1-1 signal, where Both directions left turn arrows go green at the same time, and then they go to yellow/red, and then both directions straight full green lights go on.
I feel your pain, as I almost had an accident for this very confusion when I first moved to AZ. But if I had, just like you, it would have been my fault.
Edit: spelling and paragraph breaks, because on phone via web, not app.
Ya, I have seen that happen to a friend. Family that ran the red claimed it was green and that my friend turned left on red and that's what ended up on the police report as the most likely scenario.
As someone who worked in a rival rental company:
The credit card coverage often comes with a tonne of caveats, as you've found out.
For the rental itself, you have two options: pay for it yourself, or make a new claim through your insurance. The renting branch may not allow you to pay for it yourself, and will probably charge for the down time on the vehicle (standard rental price, or as if you personally rented the vehicle for the days it will be out of commission while being repaired).
Unfortunately the second claim in such a short time will likely heavily affect your insurance rates. It sucks but you'll have to weigh the potential hit on your rates vs an out of pocket expense. It's possible the claims department for Hertz may allow a payment plan, but that will be discussed with them and not the branch you rented from, or at least that was my experience at Enterprise - as a large national company they will likely have an entirely separate and remote department that processes the repairs, has the car taken to a repair facility which is approved by Hertz, then calculate the damages and downtime. They're essentially like a claims adjuster for any insurance, and will finalize the prices for repairs.
One thing though - when did the accident occur? Because rentals are only supposed to be up to 30 days, otherwise it's a lead and falls under different rules. Did you hit that date, and come back into the branch for a renewal of the contract? If not technically the contract is in breach, though that's a difficult argument to make and would likely need a lawyer to go after, and I'm not sure it would help anyways. Insurance claims are often variable though and it isn't hugely uncommon to see them go over the 30 days.
If you have auto insurance with full coverage they do cover rentals.
If not, you can make arrangements to make payments to the rental company. If it was for work they likely have some type of insurance.
I had a rental car that was wrecked and my auto insurance covered the damages. Look at your auto policy or ask your employer
I’ve heard that, in all but three states, rental companies are required to include the bare minimum state liability coverage in the rental price. Comprehensive, trustworthy sources on this are hard to come by, so I’ll be interested in your experience.
However, for the damages to the rental car, the rental company will likely come after you. You can file a claim with Capital One as a “hail Mary,” but as you already said, they should deny your claim. This is going to be a very bad time.
I’m sorry.
Typically insurance companies settle left-hand turn cases for 75%. This may work if the other cars' insurance goes after him, but not so much with Hertz.
The best advice is to talk with his employer if in the job they are jointly liable and their insurance should pay up -
Was it for work or personal? If for work, you likely have some policy for insurance.
But if not unfortunately you will be covering the cost. Read over the policy and understand how they get to the outcome. You might need to have a lawyer to make sure they don’t try to say you owe more. On the original car was there any damage before your rental? Those damages should not be charged to you.
Third party, most states at least in the US requires a state minimum, keep in mind the other cad can go for more than that. Without an insurance company to have lawyer against the other side you might have to hire a lawyer yourself.
Unless you have a car insurance policy that covers rental cars, which you clearly don't, you're better off using the insurance they offer, even though it will be excessive. No credit card, as far as I know, covers everything. They typically cover damage to the vehicle you're renting but hardly ever cover liability to the other vehicles in an accident.
Next time, don't assume a damn thing.
Keep in mind that even if Chase covered you it is only the rental car.
If you are liable for a crash you need to either have insurance or pay out of pocket (most states have a process where you post a bond if you intended to do that) or else you are considered to be driving without insurance.
The only way that maybe I could see out is if you where in the first 15 days of the rental and somehow convince them it was an error in the booking and you only intended to have it 15 days or less.
> else you are considered to be driving without insurance.
Car rental companies are required by law to keep insurance on all of their vehicles. State minimums aren’t much, but no one is driving uninsured here.
Technically, you are right in that the rental company does carry their own insurance on all vehicles. However, that protection does not always extend to the renter and the company can hold the renter responsible for all damages incurred. For example, states like California and Texas are not required to provide state minimum insurance to the renter.
I used to work at Enterprise, not Hertz but similar. I dont know that this will work or help you, but it might me worth talking to Hertz about why they rented a car to someone without at a bare minimum of state min liab coverage. We were always instructed to ask what is your personal ins. If you said I don't have any, you weren't leaving in my car without getting my insurance. If you told me your card covered it I would tell you great, but it is still illegal for me to let you drive off with no insurance.
Again, I'm not sure if that will help, but it is a valid question.
Idk about the other stuff but wahtever you do, DO NOT ACCEPT OR CLAIM FAULT OR EVEN HINT AT THE IDEA, I would not even use that wording on Reddit insurance companies are crazy when it comes to this and have been known to monitor peoples social medias after accidents, idk if they go to Reddit but I know it happens with Facebook
>Hi, I live in a walkable city so I do not own a car or personal car insurance.
Edit: I don't know why I'm being downvoted when [this is the comment I replied to](https://www.unddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/116r2oc/comment/j989g64)
Well, first...your post doesn't even make sense. You said you hit an oncoming car but your car was the only one with major damages? Apparently in your version of the story, only one car has significant damages after a head on collision! Anyway...yeah you're pretty much f'ed. That's probably a good thing considering your ignorance in you're credit cards ins policy. This is a great example of what not to do, so cheers to that!
Contact an attorney. You are very likely at fault, but the attorney will let you know where you stand.
Your companies insurance will likely be sued anyway, as you were only renting because of work.
You need to bring in there lawyers ASAP, they will lilely want to get ahead of this.
You could also sue whoever was at-fault for the original accident for damages. It’s kind of messed up but I would talk to an attorney. Someone I know was in an accident and a woman got out of her car to help them. She got hit and killed by a third party and the third party sued the dead lady’s estate for “reckless behavior “ getting out of her car on the freeway and my friend for getting into the accident that subsequently caused the third party to kill the lady. It’s wild but I would definitely call a lawyer to help you figure it out. Otherwise you are so much more screwed than just trying to do things in good faith. Protect yourself as much as possible. Best wishes.
Hertz owns the car. Hertz has Liability on the car. Your not responsible for the other veh that you caused damage to. That other person could come after you on a civil matter, highly unlikely. As for damages to Hertz car, NO CDW your responsible for damages to Hertz vehicle. How it gets paid will fall upon you. Your own personal insurance or that credit card or your wallet is paying. Good Luck !
The renter has NO Liability here. Its not his vehicle. Hertz's liability carrier will handle claim caused by their vehicle. OP's only beef here are the damages to the Hertz car PERIOD.
CDW/LDW if taken this OP walks away from accident with no liability to fix/pay Hertz car NOR the car he got in an accident with. PERIOD based on this situation.
If other party wants to file a civil suit against OP for damages they can sue all day. Hertz's liability is on the line for it. PERIOD
Did this bullshit for 20 years this is how it works. PERIOD
You wrecked a car in less than 40 days? I drive 10-16 hours a day, 4-6 days a week and have steadily for about 12 years with no at fault accidents. How do you not pay attention enough to not wreck someone else’s car? You were in too big of a hurry or weren’t paying full attention or a combination of both. That sucks but looks like you just need to take responsibility and pay up what you’ll owe.
Ouch, seems like you might be on the hook for the rental and the other non-fault driver and vehicle if you had no auto insurance. You didn't buy the coverage through Hertz either. Your employer may have travel coverage but that will only apply if you were on the clock at the time.
Hope it won't be too much and you can make payments, or find financing. The worst thing could be bankruptcy if you can't afford to pay it and they won't settle for an affordable amount.
In the future, keep a driver only policy, it's liability only so you're going to need rental damage waivers. Limit car rental to 2 weeks and switch CC and rental company to get rental coverage from your CC.
Also, a $1m umbrella policy only costs $200-300 per year and covers almost anything your insurance might miss.
Was it the 15th day or less on the rental term? If so, I'd talk to an attorney - credit card shouldn't be able to say, "you rented for 34 days, so the accident on day 12 is not covered."
If that's not an issue, then you're arguing about repair bills, which can be substantially different. I'd still talk to an attorney about what options you have - *can* you get another shop to even look at the car? Probably, but what's the rental contract say? Do they require genuine parts or not?
Also, I'd be talking to a credit union about getting an unsecured loan to cover the cost and what the terms would be.
Its probably illegal to drive without auto insurance. We're you cited for this by police? If so, it might cause Hertz to be more aggressive in suing you. If not ... not so much, and you were quite lucky. If not, see question #1. Then see an attorney.
Now that I think about it, call the attorney for all of the above e and one more thing; whether Hertz has I Durante to cover them for uninsured motorists. Usually, this is part of any insurance policy - uninsured motorist's coverage - and I would sure think a fleet operation would have that. That doesn't get you off the hook; there's likely an indemnity clause that gives the insurance company the right to sue you in place of Hertz, after they pay Hertz, but how that might work practically would be worth asking about. Maybe an attorney would know how long it'll take and how much time you have to save up for the eventual bill. Maybe an attorney could negotiate a payment plan, if you couldn't get a loan and you have no recourse against the credit card company.
Sorry to say, but not only are you going to have to pay Hertz for the damaged rental car, I would fully expect the insurance company of the other driver to sue you for their damages as well since it sounds like you were at fault. Even if you had insurance on the rental through your credit card, it doesn't appear to cover damages to any other vehicle or injuries so you should not be relying on just that coverage.
[удалено]
> You will be insured to the state minimum through their insurer. *Hertz* will be insured through their insurer. I can't imagine said insurer won't try to subrogate and sue OP for any damages.
This is not exactly true. Some states the rental company is not required to provide the renter liability insurance. Yes, they carry their own coverage for the car, but state minimums are seriously low and they can and will hold the renter responsible for third party damages.
[удалено]
Without stating the state they rented in, we're all just guessing. If he's in New York or I believe Washington he's in luck. Not the case with Texas or California.
So it depends on the state, do we know where does he live huh?
He never stated where and dude hasn't commented once since posting. Some valuable information has been left out.
How expensive roughly?
Anywhere from tens of thousands to millions if the other party is injured.
Depends what they hit.
VERY
Wouldn't Hertz have third party liability as a compulsory insurance as they own and register the vehicle? Hertz would pay for the third party damaged but OP would have to pay for his own.
I'm not from the US, but if this happens that's BS The optional insurance here is for your damages made to your vehicle Damages against a third party, wether it's your fault or not, are covered always. And your insurance can't sue you unless they can prove it wasn't an "accident" (insurance fraud)
As others have said, you don't really have any options. The limit on the credit card is standard. I'll also add the the credit card, if it provides coverage, will typically only cover the car paid for with the credit card, i.e. the rental. It usually doesn't cover any other car or property that is damaged.
Well, the liability insurance is usually included in the rental, no?
No. It can be, but if the person renting the car declined it, like it sounds as though the OP did, then you have no insurance. If you don't have insurance, like on your own car that carries over to the rental, then rental companies require you to purchase it from them. I'm sure the OP signed something that said they had coverage. And it sounds like they signed it because they thought they did have it through their credit card. But most credit cards don't have offer liability coverage on rental cars. If anything, they offer collision, and it's limited in amount and for how long.
does home renters insurance with personal worldwide liability protection be something that would cover you, if you just had credit card vehicle coverage? thanks in advance for your thoughts.
[удалено]
OP - this. I was an auto claims adjuster for 8 years. This is the next step in finding coverage for yourself. If you were on a business trip, even if they didn’t mandate you rent a car, there could be coverage through your employers policy.
Yeah I’d definitely be contacting the employer for this. Regardless of his employment status (even if they’re freelancing), I’d likely be telling the employer about the accident, so no harm in finding out what insurance policies they may have for this scenario. I would think most companies would have liability coverage for employees at least.
Are you at this remote site because this is a work assignment? I caused a collision while on a business trip, driving a rented car. I rented the car using my credit card with the expectation this would be a reimbursed expense. Thankfully no one was injured but there was damage to both vehicles. I turned all the other driver's information over to HR and my employer's insurance covered everything.
Yes, if work is paying for the rental they may have coverage covering employee work-related rentals. For example, my work says to decline coverage offered by the rental company because their policy covers company rented vehicles.
Credit cards only cover damages to the rental car itself. Even if you don’t own a car you should have bought short term liability insurance when you began driving to cover damages to the other party & your own injuries in an accident. Unfortunately it looks like you’re going to get a huge bill when the other non at- fault party comes after you for damages.
What’s short term liability, where do you purchase that? Let’s say you’re overseas same thing?
It’s coverage that gives you auto insurance during the rental of the vehicle. One is typically offered it at the time of booking the rental, through the rental company. Lots of normal auto insurance agencies offer it as well though.
Right but that’s both right, car and liability if you hit another car. The point is you want to use credit card for car part so you aren’t paying for that twice? You need to waive cdw right to get insurance through the credit card?
I suppose so, tbh I’m not sure. I’ve never bothered with worrying about credit card insurance for a rental and I’ve always had my own auto insurance that covers rentals.
Yeah where do you get that? Could you tell that to us huh?
I rent lots for work when I travel. I have coverage on my own insurance that covers vehicles that I don’t own but are driving. Having no insurance themselves and then still declining rental insurance sounds just absolutely crazy. Leaves you open to so much risk that unfortunately OP is going to come to realize.
[удалено]
Most cards except Capital One cover collision for 30 days, but no card would have covered liability to the other vehicle.
Very interesting questions on this. Up to 15 days seems like it'd be open to a number of technicalities. Not retroactively obviously but couldn't you just rent for 14, return then get a new rental? A hassle but potentially a worthwhile one depending on other expenses and the cost of an extra rider. Never had to rent for more than two weeks so never considered this part.
Credit card coverage only covers collision to the rental car. It doesn’t cover liability or damage to the other car. Using a credit card is not a replacement for car insurance coverage from a reputable company. So even if ops credit card covered longer, op would still be responsible for damage to the other car as well as any injury or other property damage that might have occurred.
That’s why I got an umbrella pulling back when I didn’t own a car. Non-owner car insurance was way more expensive (supposedly because it is only really purchased by people with DUIs trying to get reinstated). Just had the agent confirm that the umbrella would immediately kick in, he checked and said it would (the policy minimum didn’t apply since I didn’t own a car), and I got all the other benefits of an umbrella. Combined with the credit card coverage, this left me fully covered.
[удалено]
Yeah it's really important that you read them carefully. It's important to do that.
Yeah, generally any offerings I've seen for umbrella coverage require significant limits on underlying insurance.
Depending on the card, yes you could renew the contract on each limit date. Most cards go anywhere from 28-34 days to make it less of a hassle, but as others have pointed out, no liability on any credit card.
I've seen a few at 30, but my experience has been that most are 15 days.
>I've seen a few at 30, but my experience has been that most are 15 days. Really?! I haven't checked in a while, but most major CC's were all nearer to 30.
You might want to be asking these questions to an attorney rather than Reddit.
Oh man, let’s hope the other party does not go after you for injuries Just prepare for that scenario where they claim an injury for extra money and their insurance will pursue you for the cost
Hertz's Liability insurance is on the line here. Only other involvement OP would be a deposition as to what happened in the accident. Which probably wont happen because the renter has filled out an accident report with Hertz. As a owner/operator for a car rental company did I ever get a phone call from our liability insurance carrier. Hey do you have this file back 2 years ago and we are denying this liability claim and you are on the hook for it. THIS NEVER HAPPENED. That's why we had liability insurance and payed hellacious premiums to protect us from our renters accidents.
[удалено]
Do you happen to own a home with an umbrella policy?
We got an umbrella when our teenagers started to drive but it’s attached to our car insurance - cost a lot more thru our home insurer. Wondering now if there’s an upside or downside to having the umbrella attached to either
Generally you want to get all 3 under the same provider. That gets you max savings (in theory) and ease of use.
Yea i hate these “life administration” tasks and would prefer the simplicity of having all policies together but it was something over $500. I did have home and vehicle together and moved our home policies based on a lower quote from a business coverage provider. basically one was more competitive for home insurance, one was more competitive for car insurance and the umbrella, and the multi policy discounts available with either didn’t cover the difference.
I don’t know if this would help. It might, but also when I took out an umbrella policy I had to prove that I had a certain amount of car insurance coverage and rental insurance and the standards were pretty high. Edit:my point being that without car insurance and driving I would be surprised if umbrella would cover this-if I dropped my car insurance and was in a crash, my umbrella wouldn’t cover it
[удалено]
Umbrella policies are separate from home owners insurance - they have higher limits and cover liability to other parties
umbrella policy - covers other aspects of your life
I had the same question, not sure why you were down voted. Thanks for asking!
If this was for work, doesn’t your work carry insurance?
I am very curious about this. I had a job that required rental car insurance so they wouldn’t have to pay out in case of an accident. You should see if (a) you violated work policies -which is a different issue and (b) if they can be on the hook for this.
You should check with your employer to see if it is covered under their policy as you had to rent the car to work remotely somewhere else for them.
It doesn't sound like OP was traveling for work so the employer is probably irrelevant. My read of the situation is that OP decided to rent a condo/Airbnb somewhere for a month and work remotely.
What makes you say that? Even if they rented an AirBnB I know numerous people who've done that *for work*, and expensed it.
Are you going to need credit in the next 7 years?
A mirror is only $1500 MAX and a scratch can get painted and buffed for $700. Not sure why they’d need to file bankruptcy over this damage.
It's very easy to underestimate costs to repair damage. What might look like a scratch and a broken mirror could be a lot more hidden damage, like a broken sensor or crushed wiring harness, broken clips, etc. Plus, if somebody hit my perfectly good car I wouldn't be going to the cheapest place to get it "close enough", I want my car back to how it was.
I got my car fixed with original parts and my matching paint color for a foreign and this was my price so lol.
Insurance adjuster here. The way Op describes the damage (underselling it) I can see a bodily injury claim being pursued within the next 72 hours
“Yes I have soft tissue damage and a neck injury (whiplash), and my family has PTSD” Yeah we’re paying for that *Also a claims adjuster lol
Possibly a fake one but OP said everyone is literally fine and the car is relatively unscathed. How would their description suggest a bodily injury claim?
You would be surprised at what happens in auto claims. I have paid our policy limits for less damage described. A high profile attorney knows how to make any accident bad enough to fool a jury.
A few years ago my friend's elderly relative had an accident in the parking lot at probably less than 5 mph speed. No damage on either cars besides some surface scratches, yet TWO passengers from the other car (that was not moving at the time of this *collision*) sued for thousands in chiropractor bills, "pain and suffering" and such. The driver at fault was 84 and she has not even realized there was an accident. I honestly don't know if I should laugh at it, or if I should give kudos to all the attorneys involved, or if I should curse at folks who tried to make a quick buck out of it lol.
I wouldn’t laugh Allstate has come out and said they have had to raise rates due to increased bodily injury payouts. They lost $1 billion last quarter
Yeah, it’s so sad that you can scam people like that. Most people are just barely getting by. Sue nation needs to chill.
But wait, there’s more! You will also be charged for loss of use on top of the repairs by Hertz. Bad day for you, OP. Bad day indeed.
Buy the exorbitant CDW/LDW even if you have your own liability, credit card coverage, etc. There are so many gaps that can screw you even if they pay out eventually. The loss of use alone while things get adjusted and settled can be huge. CDW usually means you are settled up immediately. I often refuse upgrades because of increased liability also. Give me the downgrade please. https://volkinsurance.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Top10forRentalCDW-LDW.pdf
They can only charge for loss of use if every other car they have at that location is rented. If they have one car that is not in use they can not charge loss of use.
I don't think you know what you're talking about. Loss of use of an asset is not contingent on what other assets a company has.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
OP does not say on what day of his rental the accident occurred. Could have been on day 17, it could have been on day 29. Only that it won't be covered under the limited, 15 day coverage from his credit card.
Hertz runs their contracts up to 45 days at a time if im not mistaken. They don't care about your credit card policy lol.
He already called them and they told him they wouldn't cover him for this incident. They 100% have this noted in his account. Why it matters? They have this technicality covered in the tos: > • Rental periods that either exceed, **or are intended to exceed**, fifteen (15) consecutive days, within Your country of residence, or thirty-one (31) days outside Your country of residence
[удалено]
The credit card company can also see all the charges and how much they are. And they're allowed to use that information against you. It wouldn't be unreasonable at that point for them to ask for a copy of your receipt haha.
I’ve worked at Hertz for several years. Depending on whether or not the vehicle is totaled. You might be able to negotiate with the local manager depending on how far the vehicle was in terms of being retired anyways. It’s kinda hot or miss with managers but mine is very cool about that kinda stuff so it might be worth a try checking with them if nothing else pans out.
This isn't helpful for OP but: If you have a license you need to have car insurance. I, personally, haven't driven in a decade, but I have a non-owner car insurance policy. It's less than $300 a year, and it covers situations like rental cars and if I borrow cars from family members.
Delete this post and lawyer up. INAL, but I work for a company that has a fleet of vehicles. We recently had something similar happen - a driver pulled out in front of one of our vehicles and was t-boned. They were ticketed, their insurance had to pay for our vehicle, etc. but, they lawyered up and filed a civil suit against us after the fact. The computer in our vehicle registered that our driver was going 5 mph over the speed limit before the crash. A judge determined that the “excess” speed could have contributed to the accident not being avoidable, and we were ordered to pay a ridiculously large sum to the person who caused the crash. Total bullshit, but it’s a conceivable out for you.
I don't get the logic. The driver was speeding so the judge let them walk away?
Even worse - the judge rewarded a driver who ran a red light and caused an accident, all because the other driver involved (ours) was going 5 over.
This is exactly why rental companies offer CDW despite it usually being scoffed at. Should have done your research about credit card coverage, as the scope of their coverage is often very limited. Looks like you unfortunately had to find out the hard way. Source: was manager at enterprise for years
OP doesn't have a car, doesn't drive often. Declines CDW. ooof. Trying to save a penny and now has a fat bill. Also, please if anyone is reading this and wants to post for help. Give details. Anyways, These are always fun to read.
CDW is rightfully scoffed at for the usual vacation car rental. Personal credit cards provide coverage for typical personal trips. 15 days is generally more than sufficient. Agreed, OP was renting for business use and needed to make suitable arrangements. Your POV is understandable as it was a function of generating revenue for your location. Source: former credit card executive Here’s some helpful info from Allstate. [allstate.com > Should you buy extra rental car insurance at the counter?](https://www.allstate.com/resources/car-insurance/rental-car-insurance)
on what day # did the accident happen?
The same thing happened to me in 2015. Luckily I didn't have to pay anything to Hertz but paid out of pocket for the damages that occurred to the other car. I was dumb actually, Hertz wanted to reach out to the other party but I wanted to pay out of pocket to the other party. I was appreciative of the fact that Hertz already taking care of the damages to the rental, and didn't wanna milk further. It might be something in agreement, I dunno. I already had a lot going Stolen motorcycle, Layoff, and Breakup. So paying out of pocket seemed like a lot less painful then lol. I'd suggest you call customer service, they usually have gap insurance, not sure how that would work in your favor, but I'd ask
I'm astounded that Hertz let you take the car without proof of insurance or buying it with them. Every time I have ever rented, I've had to show my driver's license and proof of insurance.
First off, you never admit that you are primarily fault for an accident. If you were already engaging in the left turn before the oncoming driver was visible, then he should have yielded to you when he arrived to the intersection and saw you making a turn. Admitting fault makes it an open and shut case. Hertz is going to come after you for the damages, how hard they will come after to you is in the air. They could send you to collections, they could go the legal route, they could tell the dmv you were driving without coverage. Hopefully, you were at least driving a cheaper model car and not one of their luxury models or sports cars.
In what jurisdiction can you just turn left whenever you want and other cars have to yield to you?
Not “whenever you want,” it’s if the other car is traveling so fast as to not be visible until after OP was already turning.
That doesn't matter most places. Left turns yield to oncoming. Only time it usually matters if if the car is going faster than the speed limit.
It doesn’t matter unless you have a dash cam. My mom got hit by someone running a red light when she had an arrow.100% at fault.
This is absolutely not true. Unless the OP made a left turn on a green left-turn arrow, and the other driver ran a red light, the OP is most definitely majority at fault. It doesn't matter if the OP was already engaging in the left turn; the driver turning left will always be at least majority at fault. The OP failed to yield while turning left. The driver making a left turn must always yield and has the greater duty to uphold. Shared negligence may sometimes be applied to the driver traveling straight through the intersection (maybe they didn't take evasive action or wasn't maintaining a proper lookout), but depending on the loss state's negligence laws, the OP likely would not be able to collect any settlement. The other driver's insurance company is not likely to put shared negligence on their own driver anyways. Also, admitting or denying fault has little bearing on a liability investigation. The police will complete their investigation at the scene and determine fault. The insurance company of the other driver will complete their own independent liability investigation and determine fault (The OP's insurance company would as well if they were insured). I have been a claims adjuster for many years, and most people never admit fault even when they blatantly are at fault. Even when they do admit fault, it doesn't change the investigation or the outcome. Please don't give OP false hope that they are not responsible for this accident or the consequences resulting from it.
It is true. Having the right of way doesn't mean you have the right to plow through somebody who was already there before you. If the OP began his left turn when it was safe and the other driver comes blowing down from the top of the hill and t-bones him, then that driver is absolutely at fault.
That doesn't make sense, if someone is making a "safe" left turn and is somehow hit by a car coming from far away like from a top of a hill then it wasn't safe to begin with. My advice to anyone reading this, please be extra cautious when making left turns.
OP said there were rolling hills. It is possible the car was not visible when he started his turn, and due to excessive speed came into view and hit OP while turning. Road may have a lower limit due to limited vision.
Excessive speed would be exceeding the posted limit, which is a crime and could supercede the general negligence.
I am sorry but you're wrong. I addressed the possibility of shared negligence in my original reply. If the other driver was speeding through the intersection, then that may be an instance of shared negligence (maybe even a higher amount than typical). But it wouldn't change the fact that the OP is majority at fault for failing to yield while turning left. Speed is a difficult factor to argue and prove in a liability investigation. Just because OP said the other driver may have been speeding doesn't make it true. If the OP never saw the other vehicle before the collision, how could they know they were speeding? A hill that obstructs the OP's view just indicates that the OP should have been even more cautious while turning left.
Agreed. Even if you tried to argue shared negligence you’d have to have some sort of proof. The police report would likely be against OP, the only thing you could use as an argument may be points of impact but it’s still be majority in OP for failing to yield the right of way. Unless there’s an independent witness or camera to say otherwise.
Exactly. Nice to see someone else with some sense in this thread. It's kind of scary to see how people perceive the right of way.
If what they say is true, and they couldn't see the car before they started their turn but it still hit them, how could they have acted more 'cautiously' (while still making the turn)?
Many people think you're supposed to take the left turn from back at the stopping line. You actually want to go past that line and be in the middle of the intersection. That saves time. Then when you take the left, accelerate as fast as possible.
>how could they have acted more 'cautiously' (while still making the turn)? One way would be to continuing to watch for oncoming traffic as their making the turn and then accelerating quicker to finish their turn and clear the intersection. Living in the south, I've seen way too many people that will lolligag in the intersection or pull out onto a 55 mph road and not accelerate quickly.
>If you were already engaging in the left turn before the oncoming driver was visible, then he should have yielded to you when he arrived to the intersection and saw you making a turn. That's not how it works....
In my state the one prevailing rule above all others is "Do whatever necessary to avoid a crash". So if somebody is driving in the wrong lane (yours) and you hold your ground and let them hit you, you're not completely Scott free if you have an opportunity to get out of the lane. Or at least that's my interpretation of it. I have been known to interpret things badly before ...
[удалено]
The whole point is to avoid a crash, not create another. I was comparing sitting and accepting your fate versus using an out to avoid the crash. If you had an out and didn't use it, their insurance company may come after you for some % of fault.
Last Clear Chance doctrine "The doctrine considers which party had the last opportunity to avoid the accident that caused the harm." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/last_clear_chance
What if you want to make a left, there is no oncoming traffic anywhere remotely visible, you start the left so your vehicle now occupies the left half of the road, and then suddenly a pedestrian (who had been stationary on the sidewalk until now) runs out into the crosswalk that you're about to drive over. You must stop in that precarious location until the pedestrian finishes crossing. The pedestrian trips and falls while crossing, or any similar delay like dealing with kids. Oncoming car t-bones you. Which driver is at fault? Generally you'd avoid this by "beating" the pedestrian, but technically you must stop the moment the ped occupies the crosswalk, which could easily occur while you are beginning your turn.
If it's a yield left turn, I am at fault for not paying attention to the pedestrian. They have the right of way along with oncoming traffic. If it's a green left, the pedestrian should not be crossing as there is cross traffic and the incoming traffic would have a red light. So they should be stopped. Green does not mean go. It means verify and check that you are safe to proceed so scenarios like this won't happen.
I am talking about a yield left, not a protected left. And I'm talking about starting the left when there is absolutely no indication of anything to yield to (no oncoming vehicles and no walking pedestrians). Then at the moment when you've started the left (so now oncoming traffic could collide with you) a pedestrian who was stationary darts out into the crosswalk, causing you to stop so long that a vehicle approaches.
Key word there is yield. To oncoming, to pedestrians. There was a pedestrian visible at the crosswalk. Doesnt matter if they are stationary, they could go into motion. If the have a walk signal, they have right of way.
Previous poster said pedestrian was NOT in the crosswalk, say they are at the corner talking on their cell phone. You start to make the left turn and then they suddenly start crossing in the crosswalk, leaving you hanging out in the middle of the road. Sounds like you are saying if there is any pedestrian in the area that could legally start to use the crosswalk then you shouldn't start to make a left-turn that requires traversing that crosswalk, if that's the case you could be stuck waiting a long time to make a left turn, e.g. its not a reasonable position to take in the real-world.
Exactly. For some reason, both people arguing with me don't understand that the sequence of events is: * Starting to turn (nothing indicates a need to yield: no other cars or peds in the road) * Ped then enters the crosswalk so I stop just short of the crosswalk * Oncoming vehicle then appears, and t-bones me They keep incorrectly swapping the order of the first two events around in their heads.
No, we aren't swapping things. It doesn't matter if you start to turn, if the pedestrian has the walk signal they have the right now way. You are on notice that they are there. You see them on the sidewalk. Edit: You say "nothing indicates a need to yield." That is the flaw in the thinking. It is left turns MUST yield. Not yield only when you think you need to. If you start to turn left thinking its clear, and are wrong, you are at fault.
> If you start to turn left thinking its clear, and are wrong I start to turn left thinking it's clear and am correct. At a later point in time the situation changes: the pedestrian who previously showed no intent to move from the sidewalk to the crosswalk suddenly does. This is actually more common in uncontrolled intersections, so consider that context instead if it helps. Personally I'd just blast thru before I'm truly on a collision course with the ped, but technically I should stop so I'm curious how it would play out if I did.
> they could tell the dmv you were driving without coverage Then the DMV would be like “Hey Hertz you registered this vehicle without insurance?”
Hertz has insurance for their vehicle. But hertz’s insurance will go after op for reimbursement, since op doesn’t have insurance. Hertz will be made whole. Having insurance makes this whole thing a company-to-company problem, instead of the company-to-customer problem it currently is. Not to mention, I’m sure op signed something saying that they attest to having insurance coverage or are responsible for cost.
> But hertz’s insurance will go after op for reimbursement Hertz has auto insurance that has state minimum coverage. Then the person can go after the OP for anything not covered. Hertz can go after the renter for damage to their vehicle separately.
> If you were already engaging in the left turn before the oncoming driver was visible, then he should have yielded to you when he arrived to the intersection and saw you making a turn. That's not how right of way works. Yes the practical thing is obviously to stop if you are able, but legally when someone crosses into your lane of traffic you still have right of way and it's the responsibility of the person taking the left to find a gap in the traffic pattern.
Unless the other person has a yield sign or any other traffic control device allow OP to make a left turn, he'd be at fault regardless. Assuming this is the US of course. A traffic crash investigator worth his weight would take a statement from all parties and assess damages and evidence at the scene and would make the conclusion.
In my state you can be at a green left turn arrow and the oncoming driver can run the red light. Doesn't matter, left turn, your fault.
What state is this, so I can be sure to drive completely around it if needed?
I am finding this extremely difficult to believe. Please name the state and cite the statute which claims this.
Similar situation, I was going left and had a green, proceeded into the intersection to turn. Waited for cars to stop, then proceeded to turn once the light was red and the intersection was clear. Somebody then blew the red (past other stopped cars in neighboring lanes) and slammed into me. I was cited for failing to yield to a car that ran the red in Ohio.
But you were also running the red light. It doesn't matter if your vehicle was in the middle of the intersection when the light was green. Your vehicle had not completed the left turn by the time the light turned red. You both ran the red light, but you also failed to yield while turning left. You therefore breached at least one more duty than the other driver. I would have also found you at fault.
I didn't run the red light, I was in the intersection before it turned red. In Ohio you're allowed to enter the intersection like that, but you must complete your turn once the intersection is clear.
Yes, that is running the red light. You were in the intersection when it turned red.
https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00772.htm >It’s important to note that Arizona is a comparative negligence state. This means that each person involved in an accident will be held liable to the extent of their negligence or level of responsibility. Even if the other driver was mostly responsible, you could still face liability for any portion of the accident that was your fault. /u/Zuwxiv
Wouldn't that mean if the other driver was *entirely* responsible, such as in the case of running a red light and hitting someone making a protected left turn, then they would be 100% responsible for all damages? Of course, this depends how you're determining "mostly" at fault. I've heard (without knowing how true it is) that *in practice,* some places only very rarely assign 100% fault. > https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00772.htm This looks like it's in a section describing right of way at an intersection. Does this apply to a protected turn? If there's a protected left turn (green arrow), the oncoming traffic must necessarily have a red light. Are you telling me that, in Arizona, if there are cars waiting at a red light, you *cannot* turn left on a green arrow because you That seems unlikely? That section seems to be talking about assigning right of way at unprotected left turns. I could be wrong though, I have no experience or expertise in writing traffic regulations, haha.
First off, I didn’t down vote you, and I am sorry that you are being done so. However, your description of AZ traffic law was quite suspect. I lived in Tempe, AZ for many years. The citation you provided does not match your example. From my experience, most, if not all left arrow intersections follow a 2-1-2 rule. Using an example of E/W traffic at a 4-way intersection, that rule applies as so: After n/w traffic ends, East traffic starts with both the Left turn arrow signal and the full green straight traffic lights on. After a set amount of time, the Left arrow signal changes from green to yellow, and the West traffic gets a full green straight traffic light on. After another set of time, the East traffic gets all red lights, and the West traffic gets a Left turn arrow at green, on top of the full green straight light. Then that ends, and the process repeats for n/s. In your scenario, you thought the other driver ran a red, but they did not. They still had a green. You did not recognize that because you are used to the more common 1-1 signal, where Both directions left turn arrows go green at the same time, and then they go to yellow/red, and then both directions straight full green lights go on. I feel your pain, as I almost had an accident for this very confusion when I first moved to AZ. But if I had, just like you, it would have been my fault. Edit: spelling and paragraph breaks, because on phone via web, not app.
Ya, I have seen that happen to a friend. Family that ran the red claimed it was green and that my friend turned left on red and that's what ended up on the police report as the most likely scenario.
As someone who worked in a rival rental company: The credit card coverage often comes with a tonne of caveats, as you've found out. For the rental itself, you have two options: pay for it yourself, or make a new claim through your insurance. The renting branch may not allow you to pay for it yourself, and will probably charge for the down time on the vehicle (standard rental price, or as if you personally rented the vehicle for the days it will be out of commission while being repaired). Unfortunately the second claim in such a short time will likely heavily affect your insurance rates. It sucks but you'll have to weigh the potential hit on your rates vs an out of pocket expense. It's possible the claims department for Hertz may allow a payment plan, but that will be discussed with them and not the branch you rented from, or at least that was my experience at Enterprise - as a large national company they will likely have an entirely separate and remote department that processes the repairs, has the car taken to a repair facility which is approved by Hertz, then calculate the damages and downtime. They're essentially like a claims adjuster for any insurance, and will finalize the prices for repairs. One thing though - when did the accident occur? Because rentals are only supposed to be up to 30 days, otherwise it's a lead and falls under different rules. Did you hit that date, and come back into the branch for a renewal of the contract? If not technically the contract is in breach, though that's a difficult argument to make and would likely need a lawyer to go after, and I'm not sure it would help anyways. Insurance claims are often variable though and it isn't hugely uncommon to see them go over the 30 days.
Usually if you’re getting reimbursed by work they require the insurance but you were paying on your own you’re SOL.
If you have auto insurance with full coverage they do cover rentals. If not, you can make arrangements to make payments to the rental company. If it was for work they likely have some type of insurance. I had a rental car that was wrecked and my auto insurance covered the damages. Look at your auto policy or ask your employer
I’ve heard that, in all but three states, rental companies are required to include the bare minimum state liability coverage in the rental price. Comprehensive, trustworthy sources on this are hard to come by, so I’ll be interested in your experience. However, for the damages to the rental car, the rental company will likely come after you. You can file a claim with Capital One as a “hail Mary,” but as you already said, they should deny your claim. This is going to be a very bad time. I’m sorry.
Typically insurance companies settle left-hand turn cases for 75%. This may work if the other cars' insurance goes after him, but not so much with Hertz. The best advice is to talk with his employer if in the job they are jointly liable and their insurance should pay up -
Was it for work or personal? If for work, you likely have some policy for insurance. But if not unfortunately you will be covering the cost. Read over the policy and understand how they get to the outcome. You might need to have a lawyer to make sure they don’t try to say you owe more. On the original car was there any damage before your rental? Those damages should not be charged to you. Third party, most states at least in the US requires a state minimum, keep in mind the other cad can go for more than that. Without an insurance company to have lawyer against the other side you might have to hire a lawyer yourself.
Unless you have a car insurance policy that covers rental cars, which you clearly don't, you're better off using the insurance they offer, even though it will be excessive. No credit card, as far as I know, covers everything. They typically cover damage to the vehicle you're renting but hardly ever cover liability to the other vehicles in an accident. Next time, don't assume a damn thing.
Keep in mind that even if Chase covered you it is only the rental car. If you are liable for a crash you need to either have insurance or pay out of pocket (most states have a process where you post a bond if you intended to do that) or else you are considered to be driving without insurance. The only way that maybe I could see out is if you where in the first 15 days of the rental and somehow convince them it was an error in the booking and you only intended to have it 15 days or less.
> else you are considered to be driving without insurance. Car rental companies are required by law to keep insurance on all of their vehicles. State minimums aren’t much, but no one is driving uninsured here.
Rental car company’s insurance company will go after op for reimbursement.
only for costs above the state minimums And the op was not driving without insurance
Have you seen how horribly low some state minimum coverage is? It's as low as 5k in some states and 25k in the highest.
> else you are considered to be driving without insurance. That’s still not true, which is what I replied to.
Technically, you are right in that the rental company does carry their own insurance on all vehicles. However, that protection does not always extend to the renter and the company can hold the renter responsible for all damages incurred. For example, states like California and Texas are not required to provide state minimum insurance to the renter.
[удалено]
> For all intensive porpoises, /r/boneappletea
Driving without insurance is a specific offence. That’s not the case here.
I used to work at Enterprise, not Hertz but similar. I dont know that this will work or help you, but it might me worth talking to Hertz about why they rented a car to someone without at a bare minimum of state min liab coverage. We were always instructed to ask what is your personal ins. If you said I don't have any, you weren't leaving in my car without getting my insurance. If you told me your card covered it I would tell you great, but it is still illegal for me to let you drive off with no insurance. Again, I'm not sure if that will help, but it is a valid question.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Idk about the other stuff but wahtever you do, DO NOT ACCEPT OR CLAIM FAULT OR EVEN HINT AT THE IDEA, I would not even use that wording on Reddit insurance companies are crazy when it comes to this and have been known to monitor peoples social medias after accidents, idk if they go to Reddit but I know it happens with Facebook
[удалено]
>Hi, I live in a walkable city so I do not own a car or personal car insurance. Edit: I don't know why I'm being downvoted when [this is the comment I replied to](https://www.unddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/116r2oc/comment/j989g64)
Well, first...your post doesn't even make sense. You said you hit an oncoming car but your car was the only one with major damages? Apparently in your version of the story, only one car has significant damages after a head on collision! Anyway...yeah you're pretty much f'ed. That's probably a good thing considering your ignorance in you're credit cards ins policy. This is a great example of what not to do, so cheers to that!
Contact an attorney. You are very likely at fault, but the attorney will let you know where you stand. Your companies insurance will likely be sued anyway, as you were only renting because of work. You need to bring in there lawyers ASAP, they will lilely want to get ahead of this.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You could also sue whoever was at-fault for the original accident for damages. It’s kind of messed up but I would talk to an attorney. Someone I know was in an accident and a woman got out of her car to help them. She got hit and killed by a third party and the third party sued the dead lady’s estate for “reckless behavior “ getting out of her car on the freeway and my friend for getting into the accident that subsequently caused the third party to kill the lady. It’s wild but I would definitely call a lawyer to help you figure it out. Otherwise you are so much more screwed than just trying to do things in good faith. Protect yourself as much as possible. Best wishes.
Sounds like OP is at fault, they made a left turn in front of oncoming traffic.
[удалено]
Hertz owns the car. Hertz has Liability on the car. Your not responsible for the other veh that you caused damage to. That other person could come after you on a civil matter, highly unlikely. As for damages to Hertz car, NO CDW your responsible for damages to Hertz vehicle. How it gets paid will fall upon you. Your own personal insurance or that credit card or your wallet is paying. Good Luck !
[удалено]
The renter has NO Liability here. Its not his vehicle. Hertz's liability carrier will handle claim caused by their vehicle. OP's only beef here are the damages to the Hertz car PERIOD. CDW/LDW if taken this OP walks away from accident with no liability to fix/pay Hertz car NOR the car he got in an accident with. PERIOD based on this situation. If other party wants to file a civil suit against OP for damages they can sue all day. Hertz's liability is on the line for it. PERIOD Did this bullshit for 20 years this is how it works. PERIOD
You wrecked a car in less than 40 days? I drive 10-16 hours a day, 4-6 days a week and have steadily for about 12 years with no at fault accidents. How do you not pay attention enough to not wreck someone else’s car? You were in too big of a hurry or weren’t paying full attention or a combination of both. That sucks but looks like you just need to take responsibility and pay up what you’ll owe.
I would check with your employer if they have excess coverage for you if you were working at the time of the accident.
A lesson taught is a lesson learned.
Ouch, seems like you might be on the hook for the rental and the other non-fault driver and vehicle if you had no auto insurance. You didn't buy the coverage through Hertz either. Your employer may have travel coverage but that will only apply if you were on the clock at the time. Hope it won't be too much and you can make payments, or find financing. The worst thing could be bankruptcy if you can't afford to pay it and they won't settle for an affordable amount. In the future, keep a driver only policy, it's liability only so you're going to need rental damage waivers. Limit car rental to 2 weeks and switch CC and rental company to get rental coverage from your CC. Also, a $1m umbrella policy only costs $200-300 per year and covers almost anything your insurance might miss.
Was it the 15th day or less on the rental term? If so, I'd talk to an attorney - credit card shouldn't be able to say, "you rented for 34 days, so the accident on day 12 is not covered." If that's not an issue, then you're arguing about repair bills, which can be substantially different. I'd still talk to an attorney about what options you have - *can* you get another shop to even look at the car? Probably, but what's the rental contract say? Do they require genuine parts or not? Also, I'd be talking to a credit union about getting an unsecured loan to cover the cost and what the terms would be. Its probably illegal to drive without auto insurance. We're you cited for this by police? If so, it might cause Hertz to be more aggressive in suing you. If not ... not so much, and you were quite lucky. If not, see question #1. Then see an attorney. Now that I think about it, call the attorney for all of the above e and one more thing; whether Hertz has I Durante to cover them for uninsured motorists. Usually, this is part of any insurance policy - uninsured motorist's coverage - and I would sure think a fleet operation would have that. That doesn't get you off the hook; there's likely an indemnity clause that gives the insurance company the right to sue you in place of Hertz, after they pay Hertz, but how that might work practically would be worth asking about. Maybe an attorney would know how long it'll take and how much time you have to save up for the eventual bill. Maybe an attorney could negotiate a payment plan, if you couldn't get a loan and you have no recourse against the credit card company.