Zipcar is not liable for the actions of its customers, insofar as the insurance coverage is concerned. Insurance (n) - [...] D. Coverage by a contract binding

Zipcar is not liable for the actions of its customers, insofar as the insurance coverage is concerned. Insurance (n) - [...] D. Coverage by a contract binding a party to indemnify another against specified loss in return for premiums paid. Indemnity (n) - [...] [P]rotection, as by insurance, from liabilities or penalties incurred by one's actions. The person who was rear-ended by the Zipcar member is entitled solely to recover from the member. Zipcar, as a corporate entity, is not responsible for their member's actions unless they caused the actions or (in the ever-popular) "should have known" the actions would take place. In the linked article [1] from the Reuters blog, the court ruled that Zipcar is a car rental company. All car rental companies are not responsible for the actions of the people who pay to rent the cars. The insurer that provides coverage that people buy through Zipcar is responsible for fulfilling the terms of the policy, but that is a contract between the insurer and the insured. Zipcar bears no corporate liability, which is where the person whose car was rear-ended erred. If she had sued the driver and Liberty Mutual, or just the driver, she would have prevailed if the driver had been found at fault and could have recovered from the driver's insurance company. I can't tell, from either article, why she didn't go this route, since it's what thousands of people who are involved in wrecks do every year. 1 - http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202462707131&CarSharing_Company_Entitled_to_Same_Liability_Shield_as_Rental_Firms_Court_Rules http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202462707131&CarS... (I used to do auto insurance-related work in a former career and find the entire process needlessly complex.)