3 ms·
<imaginary bq>it seems they’re still interested in putting liability onto their members when there’s an accident, like the time when Zipcar member Dale Douglas
by snsr 16y ago
<imaginary bq>it seems they’re still interested in putting liability onto their members when there’s an accident, like the time when Zipcar member Dale Douglas rear-ended Leslie Minto. Minto took Zipcar to court, but Zipcar won, saying that it was not liable “for harm to persons or property that results or arises out of the use, operation, or possession of [their vehicles] during the period of the rental or lease”.</end bq>
Isn't this precisely why drivers/owners are compelled to purchase insurance? Dude is lucky he didn't kill someone.
- MartinCron 16y agoIsn't this precisely why drivers/owners are compelled to purchase insurance? The contentious issue is that the zipcar marketing implies that "comprehensive" insurance is included. They don't require you to have outside insurance, and they don't even offer you an opportunity to (through them) get more (specifically liability) insurance at an additional cost. I don't know about you, but when I see the word "comprehensive", I tend to think it covers everything. The concept of the car sharing service is that it's something you use rarely. Paying to be insured 24/7/365 for something that you use once or twice a month seems wasteful. I'm not even sure it's possible to get insurance for car sharing services through traditional insurers. In any case, it seems like far more of a hassle than checking a checkbox to pay more to get some additional insurance through zipcar directly.