3 ms·

The text on the trust page linked in the article https://kitsplit.com/trust https://kitsplit.com/trust, does not specifically protect the equipment lender: > K

The text on the trust page linked in the article https://kitsplit.com/trust https://kitsplit.com/trust, does not specifically protect the equipment lender: > KitSplit Short Term Insurance and Damage Coverage Options: > Accidents happen, but on KitSplit you are always covered. Owners: rest assured that we require renters to purchase insurance, a damage waiver, or leave a full deposit. Renters: you have the choice of three kinds of coverage: you can purchase short-term coverage through our site, you can upload a certificate of insurance, or you can leave a deposit for the value of the equipment. Read more about coverage here.

holografix 7y ago
Wow this is so misleading.
jjoonathan 7y ago
> Owners: rest assured that we require renters to purchase insurance, a damage waiver, or leave a full deposit. I'm sure they have their loopholes in order, but damn this is deceptive.
- jjwhitaker 7y ago
  So they have one of the following: 1. Certification of renters insurance with the renters information, which if fake is fraud. 2. A waiver of some kind covering damage to the item, probably out of pocket I-accept-all-risk type signed by the renter, which if fake is fraud. 3. Full deposit of the rented gear to payout to the owner if lost/stolen/damaged, which if declined may be fraud or at least grounds to stop the transaction and protect the owner. Meaning there is either enough info to find the renter at least for a civil suite or there is fraud. Who is liable for fraud here? Legally I'm not sure but based on the reply and posturing from KitSplit I'd say they are. Based on this info I'm not going to use or advocate their platform. It looks like the renter went for the deposit option but the transaction was declined. Kitsplit should have stopped the transaction there, minimum. One can't claim to be 99.99% perfect then do nothing in response to the .01% where clients lose thousands from theft on a a technicality.

holografix 7y ago

Wow this is so misleading.

jjoonathan 7y ago

> Owners: rest assured that we require renters to purchase insurance, a damage waiver, or leave a full deposit. I'm sure they have their loopholes in order, but damn this is deceptive.

jjwhitaker 7y ago
So they have one of the following: 1. Certification of renters insurance with the renters information, which if fake is fraud. 2. A waiver of some kind covering damage to the item, probably out of pocket I-accept-all-risk type signed by the renter, which if fake is fraud. 3. Full deposit of the rented gear to payout to the owner if lost/stolen/damaged, which if declined may be fraud or at least grounds to stop the transaction and protect the owner. Meaning there is either enough info to find the renter at least for a civil suite or there is fraud. Who is liable for fraud here? Legally I'm not sure but based on the reply and posturing from KitSplit I'd say they are. Based on this info I'm not going to use or advocate their platform. It looks like the renter went for the deposit option but the transaction was declined. Kitsplit should have stopped the transaction there, minimum. One can't claim to be 99.99% perfect then do nothing in response to the .01% where clients lose thousands from theft on a a technicality.