6 ms·

What I found most shocking is that if KitSplit claims that less than 0.1% of rentals result in voluntary parting, why not cover this person's losses? Maybe cov

What I found most shocking is that if KitSplit claims that less than 0.1% of rentals result in voluntary parting, why not cover this person's losses? Maybe covering voluntary parting would result in too many fraudulent claims. If that's the case, they should clearly explain that theft is not covered and perhaps offer an insurance supplement.

natrik 7y ago
https://medium.com/p/4530d0062e60/responses/show https://medium.com/p/4530d0062e60/responses/show Read the CEO's comment above. She states their assessment has been effective at blocking 99.99% of bad actors and stopping millions of dollars of theft on the platform She's almost surely exaggerating and pulling those numbers out of thin air.
- lalos 7y ago
  It's not theft, it's 'voluntary parting'. Lawyer speak probably.
  - droithomme 7y ago
    Their argument is that theft is when someone comes and takes your stuff. Voluntary parting is when you voluntarily hand it to someone, lending or renting, and they fail to return it. Theft on the other hand is called involuntary parting. Not sure how much of a gray area this is. If I don't return a car from the dealer for a test drive and am caught, I'll be charged by police with theft, not voluntary parting. Likewise with car and equipment rentals. It seems like the distinction is something that only comes up in the text of insurance policies, and is not an actual legal principle from criminal law. Police see it as theft and it's a criminal act. But the contract you agree to defines it as voluntary parting, doesn't cover it, and does cover theft, which never happens and isn't possible on their platform, so they never have to do anything except collect a big share of the rental fee.
    - emerongi 7y ago
      Will you actually be charged with theft? If I don't pay my mortgage, I don't get charged with anything. What's the difference between lending money vs a car/camera etc? I guess it all comes down to intent, but intent is hard to prove.
      - droithomme 7y ago
        The thief in this case used a false id, engaged in identity theft, and also robbed another person on the same day. It's hard to imagine circumstances where any court or jury would fail to find criminal intent in this particular case given those details. If someone borrows something and then gets lost in the woods and dies, it's not theft because there wasn't intent. You are correct that these cases hinge on intent.
    - dclowd9901 7y ago
      The distinction almost surely exists because of the ease at which a thief could perform a "voluntary parting" versus a theft. Why would insurance choose to cover something that was actually likely to happen?
- ddalex 7y ago
  From the reply: > I want to be clear that there are no insurance providers or rental platforms that we know of that do offer coverage for voluntary parting. It takes some guts to put this in the reply when the article specifically mentions the insurance solution of their competitor. It's like they didn't even read the piece they're replying to.
  - 3JPLW 7y ago
    That's astounding on another level, too — they encourage owners to get their own insurance policy! And yet they aren't aware of any such providers. Insane. > A) On our insurance page kitsplit.com/insurance We explain in underlined terms that “we recommend that owners need to get their own annual policy with voluntary parting coverage in addition to the insurance provided by the renter.” > The sad reality is that insurance companies simply do not cover voluntary parting. As a result we are, as of now, unable to offer voluntary parting because there are no insurance partners who provide it. Now I'm sure there's a difference between ensuring a business as a whole like that and insuring yourself, but seriously?
    - mncolinlee 7y ago
      I do hate playing devil's advocate because I totally disagree with the position of the devil in this case. Keep in mind that it's possible to be technically correct and also completely misleading. In this case, she's arguing that their insurance partners do not provide voluntary parting insurance. This may be technically correct. However, the way insurance works is you can always go to an insurer of last resort and ask for exceptions. Lloyd's of London will cover race cars while racing or space vessels for accidents, for example, even though those are hardly standard policies. Nearly anything can be covered if you set the premium and deductibles high enough. They have billing codes for some pretty bizarre insured cases. An entire sharing economy of companies could easily devise an insurance product that meets these needs if they worked to make it to happen. It would be trivial to scare consumers away from competitors that do not provide this.
      - 3JPLW 7y ago
- radicaldreamer 7y ago
  They’re lying
- theklub 7y ago
  There could be tons of spam attempting to register on the site that she is including in that number.
- lostlogin 7y ago
  Is there any issue with her response and what it conveys to shareholders? If the issue is greater than 0.01%, does that leave her with a problem greater than ‘just’ the theft that has occurred?
mc32 7y ago
I’m further frustrated that fraud resulting in theft is called “voluntary parting” at best it’s involuntary parting or fraudulent parting. It actually sounds like a euphemism for a crime.
- ddalex 7y ago
  It's voluntary on part of the owner. They understood the risk of handing off the goods. A lot of the law is based on intent - did you want to kill Jack or you didn't see him when you reversed with your forklift? So the intent there matters. What this guy can argue in a court is that the risk was misrepresented by the company, and then it becomes theft if he can prove that he was duped into this contract.
  - mc32 7y ago
    Not only the risk it would happen, but this intermediary should take responsibility and should have insurance for these situations. The way it should be structured is, you let the item out to intermediary (who takes legal possession if not physical) and they in turn are on the hook for any loss, when re-let to a third party, at which point they would do a better job of betting at insuring themselves. The NY state attorney general should be looking at these unfair and asymmetrical arrangements (especially when they are basically EULAs)
tempestn 7y ago
Kitsplit grossed $19 on this $3500 piece of equipment. Presumably their profit margins are relatively high given the nature of their service, so say they netted.. $9? Or less? If 0.1% of rentals result in voluntary parting, that works out to $3.50, a significant chunk of their profit margin. (If they're even being honest about the 0.1%.)
throwamay1241 7y ago
What if the owner and rentee were in kahootz? Or the owner just decides to report the the rentee has stolen the item? Maybe the latter is covered by business logic, maybe not.
- dx7tnt 7y ago
  Yeah that's what I figured. Once the people behind kitsplit, or even just a staff member realises how easy this is to casually walk away with thousands upon thousands of dollars of camera equipment, per day... (Ps it's 'cahoots')
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

natrik 7y ago

https://medium.com/p/4530d0062e60/responses/show https://medium.com/p/4530d0062e60/responses/show Read the CEO's comment above. She states their assessment has been effective at blocking 99.99% of bad actors and stopping millions of dollars of theft on the platform She's almost surely exaggerating and pulling those numbers out of thin air.

lalos 7y ago
It's not theft, it's 'voluntary parting'. Lawyer speak probably.
- droithomme 7y ago
  Their argument is that theft is when someone comes and takes your stuff. Voluntary parting is when you voluntarily hand it to someone, lending or renting, and they fail to return it. Theft on the other hand is called involuntary parting. Not sure how much of a gray area this is. If I don't return a car from the dealer for a test drive and am caught, I'll be charged by police with theft, not voluntary parting. Likewise with car and equipment rentals. It seems like the distinction is something that only comes up in the text of insurance policies, and is not an actual legal principle from criminal law. Police see it as theft and it's a criminal act. But the contract you agree to defines it as voluntary parting, doesn't cover it, and does cover theft, which never happens and isn't possible on their platform, so they never have to do anything except collect a big share of the rental fee.
  - emerongi 7y ago
    Will you actually be charged with theft? If I don't pay my mortgage, I don't get charged with anything. What's the difference between lending money vs a car/camera etc? I guess it all comes down to intent, but intent is hard to prove.
    - droithomme 7y ago
      The thief in this case used a false id, engaged in identity theft, and also robbed another person on the same day. It's hard to imagine circumstances where any court or jury would fail to find criminal intent in this particular case given those details. If someone borrows something and then gets lost in the woods and dies, it's not theft because there wasn't intent. You are correct that these cases hinge on intent.
  - dclowd9901 7y ago
    The distinction almost surely exists because of the ease at which a thief could perform a "voluntary parting" versus a theft. Why would insurance choose to cover something that was actually likely to happen?
ddalex 7y ago
From the reply: > I want to be clear that there are no insurance providers or rental platforms that we know of that do offer coverage for voluntary parting. It takes some guts to put this in the reply when the article specifically mentions the insurance solution of their competitor. It's like they didn't even read the piece they're replying to.
- 3JPLW 7y ago
  That's astounding on another level, too — they encourage owners to get their own insurance policy! And yet they aren't aware of any such providers. Insane. > A) On our insurance page kitsplit.com/insurance We explain in underlined terms that “we recommend that owners need to get their own annual policy with voluntary parting coverage in addition to the insurance provided by the renter.” > The sad reality is that insurance companies simply do not cover voluntary parting. As a result we are, as of now, unable to offer voluntary parting because there are no insurance partners who provide it. Now I'm sure there's a difference between ensuring a business as a whole like that and insuring yourself, but seriously?
  - mncolinlee 7y ago
    I do hate playing devil's advocate because I totally disagree with the position of the devil in this case. Keep in mind that it's possible to be technically correct and also completely misleading. In this case, she's arguing that their insurance partners do not provide voluntary parting insurance. This may be technically correct. However, the way insurance works is you can always go to an insurer of last resort and ask for exceptions. Lloyd's of London will cover race cars while racing or space vessels for accidents, for example, even though those are hardly standard policies. Nearly anything can be covered if you set the premium and deductibles high enough. They have billing codes for some pretty bizarre insured cases. An entire sharing economy of companies could easily devise an insurance product that meets these needs if they worked to make it to happen. It would be trivial to scare consumers away from competitors that do not provide this.
    - 3JPLW 7y ago
radicaldreamer 7y ago
They’re lying
theklub 7y ago
There could be tons of spam attempting to register on the site that she is including in that number.
lostlogin 7y ago
Is there any issue with her response and what it conveys to shareholders? If the issue is greater than 0.01%, does that leave her with a problem greater than ‘just’ the theft that has occurred?

mc32 7y ago

I’m further frustrated that fraud resulting in theft is called “voluntary parting” at best it’s involuntary parting or fraudulent parting. It actually sounds like a euphemism for a crime.

ddalex 7y ago
It's voluntary on part of the owner. They understood the risk of handing off the goods. A lot of the law is based on intent - did you want to kill Jack or you didn't see him when you reversed with your forklift? So the intent there matters. What this guy can argue in a court is that the risk was misrepresented by the company, and then it becomes theft if he can prove that he was duped into this contract.
- mc32 7y ago
  Not only the risk it would happen, but this intermediary should take responsibility and should have insurance for these situations. The way it should be structured is, you let the item out to intermediary (who takes legal possession if not physical) and they in turn are on the hook for any loss, when re-let to a third party, at which point they would do a better job of betting at insuring themselves. The NY state attorney general should be looking at these unfair and asymmetrical arrangements (especially when they are basically EULAs)

tempestn 7y ago

Kitsplit grossed $19 on this $3500 piece of equipment. Presumably their profit margins are relatively high given the nature of their service, so say they netted.. $9? Or less? If 0.1% of rentals result in voluntary parting, that works out to $3.50, a significant chunk of their profit margin. (If they're even being honest about the 0.1%.)

throwamay1241 7y ago

What if the owner and rentee were in kahootz? Or the owner just decides to report the the rentee has stolen the item? Maybe the latter is covered by business logic, maybe not.

dx7tnt 7y ago
Yeah that's what I figured. Once the people behind kitsplit, or even just a staff member realises how easy this is to casually walk away with thousands upon thousands of dollars of camera equipment, per day... (Ps it's 'cahoots')

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]