Hello Lavender Room! I’m here after a long hiatus, as I sit and ponder an ethical question. I wondered where I might find a group of intelligent (sometimes), opinionated (usually) people who love a good argument, with the possibility that an expert in the situation might chime in.
Here’s the situation:
Person A tethered his dog to a non-secured bench outside a retail establishment while he went inside to talk to someone. While inside, Person A’s dog was spooked/startled, and ran across the street, dragging the bench behind. The bench managed to hit two cars, causing denting/scratches in them. Person A arrived at the scene and left a note for the two cars’ owners apologizing for the situation and left contact information.
Person B owns one of the cars. Shortly after the incident, Person B called Person A to speak about payment for the repairs. Since the incident wasn’t related to Person A’s auto insurance and the likelihood that the damages were less than Person A’s homeowner’s deductible, Person A told Person B that he would pay for the repairs out of pocket. Person B suggested he would file a claim with his car insurance, and Person A suggested that Person B would be better off not doing so, unless Person B thinks Person A is at risk of not paying (in which case the car insurance company would attempt to collect from Person B). Person B did not file a claim and would have no reason to doubt that Person A will pay him.
Person B subsequently took his car to get an estimate, which amounted to $1200. He called Person A to give them this figure, then also requested payment for the cost of car rental during the repair process (in the range of $400).
Here’s the question for the esteemed Lavender Room:
Is Person B justified in requesting the rental car reimbursement? And should Person B have filed a claim with his auto insurance?
Is Person B justified in requesting the rental car reimbursement?
I think so, yeah. Person A has admitted to being responsible, correct? (Otherwise why offer to pay for the repairs out of pocket in the first place.) If Person A is responsible for the repairs, I see no reason Person A isn’t also responsible for the cost of transportation while the repairs are being carried out. (Though
And should Person B have filed a claim with his auto insurance?
I think Person B *could *have filed a claim with his auto insurance, but it sounds like Person Be declined to do so as a favor to Person A. Nothing wrong with that. Probably in both of their interests not to involve the insurance companies, frankly. So that’s a “no.”
Person B wasn’t driving the car when it was damaged, right? It was parked?
Just curious - would not filing a claim have been a favor to Person A? Would an insurance company’s involvement have cost Person A more in the long run?
Just curious - would not filing a claim have been a favor to Person A? Would an insurance company’s involvement have cost Person A more in the long run?
Depends on the policy, I guess. Generally, when people offer to pay out of pocket for damages, it’s because they think the damages will be less than the deductible, and they’d rather just pay and not see their policy rate jacked up for the next few years.
I suppose it’s a simple matter of math for Person A. What’s the deductible, and how much would the resulting policy increase be, for how long?
Like I said, it probably benefits Person B as well, because even if he wasn’t at fault, or even involved, that doesn’t necessarily mean his insurance company won’t jack up *his *rates if it’s reported.
Then you have to consider the time and grief involved in getting either insurance company to pay up.
Property damage to multiple vehicles. . . at the very least I would have called the police non-emergency line and gotten an incident report done. That way if need be, I could get insurance involved.
As to the main question, yes, I believe person A is obligated to make person B whole for any costs associated with the matter, including a rental car. However, if I was person A and I was concerned about the cost of the rental, I might suggest arranging the rental for them and shopping for the best price. I wouldn’t rent them a sub-compact, would try to get something similar to what person A is currently driving, but I also wouldn’t rent them a full size luxury car either.
That’s kinda what I was thinking. I got a weeks worth of economy car rental for $120. If person B is asking for car rental, person should have the ability to choose the rental company and type of vehicle.
I think that it depends. What kind of car was damaged?
If I am driving a BMW 7 series and have to get a rental, I am not likely to get a Kia Rio as my rental. Nor should I be expected to. Having said that, $400 sounds like a very expensive rental.
So what was the damaged car and what was the rental?
First, that would be a liability claim on the dog owner’s home insurance policy which usually carries no deductible. The deductible on your home policy is for your property damage.
Second, I think it is fair that the dog owner pay for a rental car. It was their negligence that left the car owner with a car in the shop so they should attempt to keep them whole through the repairs. Now if I was the dog owner I would probably balk at a $400 rental bill and attempt to find a more manageable rental cost.
Person B should give Person A a few days to make good on the deal otherwise claim it. People are not always as honest as they claim to be.
Something similar happened to me. Kid was screwimg around in his grandfathers car, hit a car which bumped me. Kid was scared and told both drivers his car was in the shop from an accident he caused. He wanted to pay out of pocket for both. I told him he could not afford the first car yet could possibly pay for mine. Information was exchanged. I told him to call by X day. He did not so I called to ask what he wanted to do. He was messing around like a typical teen and hung up on me. I called back, left a message to tell I was going to claim it. He quickly called with some excuse and I told him he had a chance but fucked up so now is going to have to pay.
How long did the person have to use the rental car? I can usually rent a mid-sized car here for about $280 a week. With taxes, it gets pretty close to $400. If I try to rent one for 3-5 days, the price is often the same as the full week price.
I don’t know many body shops that fix a car and have it back in 1-2 days, so a full week may be appropriate.
Clearly, Person A should sue the retail establishment for carelessly positioning an unsecured bench on a public sidewalk, thus enabling just this sort of event.
yes, justified in seeking payment for rental car as the damage and need for the rental was caused by Person A and had they gone through INS, a rental would be covered. BUT just like with insurance there is a limit on rental car daily and total fee so person B should stick with that amount.
No clue whether they should have filed with ins but since they chose not to at As request, if A is smart A will get a waiver or accord & satisfaction in writing to prevent a future claim.
JesseR covered this, but I will add on a bit. I work in insurance (yes throw your stones).
Person A is liable and his homeowners insurance would cover the incident under the liability portion. Liability claims do not carry a deductible so Person A can file the claim with their homeowners and not be out of pocket for anything. And yes the homeowner insurance company has a duty to put Person B back exactly where they were before the incident occurred which includes covering the rental car so that Person B is not out any money in the end.
However, Person A may decide that losing a claims free discount and possibly having a surcharge on their home policy for a claim is not worth it for the $1,500 they would end up paying out without the insurance involved. This is the case where Person B is doing Person A a favor. This only works in Person A takes full responsibility and pays for everything they should. This typically breaks down when it comes to things like the rental car. Person A may not think they should have to pay, they may not think they should pay so much, Person B might be a jerk and while he drives a 95 Saturn he tries to rent a Hummer, etc. This is why it is often necessary to involve insurance. Also if you are ever in Person B’s position, it is always best to have a police report taken. Person A may verbally take full responsibility at the time of the incident, but then when Person A get’s pissed off about the negotiations, they may change their tune. Hard for Person B to then prove to insurance without an official record or witness list. We constantly have clients get screwed over because someone asks them not to turn in a claim or call the police and promises to pay for everything, then changes their tune a week later.
Person B can turn the claim into their own car insurance company. The downside here is they have to pay their deductible up front, and then hope that their insurance can recover that money from Person A in subrogation. Doesn’t always happen that way so Person B could be out the deductible. Also all states and insurance companies do things a little different, even though it is a not at fault accident, Person B may still get dinged at some point for having the claim on their record. One way we see people get dinged is say Person B turns in the claim, gets his money back and his current insurance does not surcharge him for it. Say 18 months later his insurance company has taken an across the board rate increase that causes Person B to shop around. Some companies he shops with may hold the fact that he had a claim 18 months ago against him even though it was not his fault, he may not get the best rate with the new company.
I always recommend to try to go through the responsible party’s insurance company first so that nothing shows up on Person B’s CLUE (insurance record) report. If that is not possible or Person A is being a dick about it, Person B’s insurance will take care of it, but that is a last resort IMO.
Generally, when two insurance companies are sorting out which driver is at fault between their drivers, they will approve ‘reasonable’ rental car expenses depending on whether the driver asking for those expenses carries rental car coverage on their own policy. I pay a couple of dollars a month for this coverage just for this reason. If someone hits me and my car is out of service, their insurance company will probably be in contact with mine and they will be told by my insurance company that I carry rental car coverage for accidents caused by me and that they have an obligation to reimburse me if their insured caused the accident.
Regarding the notion of what’s ‘reasonable’, someone mentioned putting a 7-series driver into a Kia Rio. Well, I drive a 7-series and I pay the insurance premiums associated with the value of the car. So, whether I have cause an accident or someone else does, neither insurance company is going to put me in some econobox. Not. Happening.
I know I can’t rent an equal replacement, but I would expect a luxury car offered by a rental car company of their choice. The insurance companies are fully aware that there are a lot of cars on the road with varying values and if one of their insureds hits a high value car, they should have that factored into their rates.
By the way, this happened to me and the at fault driver’s company DID try to put me into a Corolla. Fortunately for them, the car was in the shop only about 5 days. I really only wanted a full sized car since I frequently have to pick up clients and others from the airport, etc. They ended up getting me a Cadillac, but I would have preferred a Camry or something. Felt like I was driving my Dad’s car.
Last, more than likely, Person B could have simply used their comprehensive coverage for this since the car wasn’t moving. I don’t think comprehensive claims cause an increase in rates, but I could be wrong about that.