Comments on: How comprehensive is Zipcar’s insurance?

By: jacktrip

jacktrip — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 04:15:45 +0000

I really don’t understand what you’re saying about Zipcar at all. You haven’t told me any details and even your recounting of one member’s bad experience is vague at best. I’m not defending Zipcar at all – it’s just that your article just seems like a continuation of an on-going argument that I am not privy to the details of.

Jack
http://www.accidentinjurydirect.co.uk

By: Abe.Froman

Abe.Froman — Sun, 06 Mar 2011 19:35:56 +0000

As of today the Terms & Conditions seem to say that there is no collision insurance for a renter. There is insurance for liability & property damage. If correct, that means a renter is liable for the retail price or pr-rated used-price of a car if it is a total loss. I’ve emailed insurance@zipcar.com asking to clear this up. In the meantime, am looking onto a personal umbrella policy. Driving around in a newish car without collision insurance is financial foolishness.

By: Peterrt

Peterrt — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 19:38:59 +0000

A member was recently ejected from the Zip car club in the UK after a no-fault, no-injury accident. This was the first such incident of the member. Zip claims that the member contravened its “abuse of use” clause.

Zip is involved in a merger with the other major car sharing club in the UK, Streetcar. This is held up while the EU deals with the monopoly issue. Could be interesting news to the EU officials that Zip does not allow its members to have accidents despite offering insurance.

By: Endicott65

Endicott65 — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 19:24:59 +0000

Other pertinent questions not answered on Zipcar’s site and which they have not answered via e-mail, are “what insurance company provides the insurance coverage, is the company approved to write auto insurance in, e.g., New York, what is the A. M Best rating of the insurer and where can I find the explicit policy wording?”

All the advertising or good intentions in the world won’t help if the insurer is out of business or is beyond the reach of US courts or has a policy with so many exceptions that no actual coverage is provided.

By: FrankLG

FrankLG — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 03:19:10 +0000

niveditas: Those are possibilities. It would also potentially allow the plaintiff to collect from Zipcar if the insurance covering the liable driver refused to pay for the plaintiff’s damages (e.g. on some technicality).

By: niveditas

niveditas — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 21:02:34 +0000

I’d be curious to know why the plaintiff in this case wanted to force liability onto Zipcar? Were the claimed damages more than the $300,000 covered by insurance, or was the renter under 21?

By: FrankLG

FrankLG — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:23:00 +0000

Here is what Zipcar says about liability coverage:

“Beginning November 1, 2007, for Zipcar members 21 years of age or older, our insurance coverage consists of a combined single limit of $300,000 per accident, meaning that all third party bodily injuries, or property damage costs relating to the accident covered in the aggregate up to $300,000. For drivers under 21, we provide coverage up to state-mandated levels, which vary by the state in which the accident occurs. Zipcars are covered under a vehicle collision policy.”

By: nanmeade

nanmeade — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:34:29 +0000

Yes, dWj, the collision coverage on Douglas’ policy would cover his vehicle damage and the liability coverage would cover the other vehicle. However, I am trying to specify the difference between what ZipCar is marketing which is “comprehensive” and what the TYPE of loss actually was and that is a “collision” loss. If Douglas had collision coverage on his auto insurance policy then the liability on that policy would cover Minto’s vehicle in this accident.

By: BrianVan

BrianVan — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 14:26:21 +0000

I agree that the key factor in the lawsuit above is “liability coverage” and not collision or comprehensive. So, marketing aside: it would probably be illegal to put drivers in a car with no liability insurance. I believe the act of renting the car itself provides the minimum legal liability coverage for the state where the car is registered. (In NY State, that’s a $25,000 limit of medical reimbursement for one person involved in an accident and $10,000 limit for property damage claims) I don’t really care what the insurance seniority chain is for this… if the Zipcar bill is paid with a credit card, does the cardholders’ typical rental benefit kick in?… but we should be well assured that Zipcar has smart legal counsel that would prevent them from lending a car in a zero-insurance situation.

So, Minto may have had an excess of $10k in billable car damages, and named Zipcar as a plaintiff to cover the gap. But in this case, Douglas is responsible for the gap. That is normal.

I don’t think that most people, even normal car owners, are aware of the risk that they take upon themselves when they purchase minimum liability coverage. There are a lot of fairly expensive cars on the road. It’s not Zipcar’s responsibility to educate its customers on all applicable state laws related to insurance and liability, but caveat emptor.

By: dWj

dWj — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 02:30:41 +0000

Actually, nanmeade, collision would cover the car he was driving; liability would cover the other car. Even with the required minimum, he would have had some liability coverage, so I’m with FrankLG; I kind of want more explicit direct information that the insurance flaked out for some reason.

By: nanmeade

nanmeade — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 23:31:27 +0000

Comprehensive insurance is coverage for Fire, Theft, Vandalism, Deer Hits, Damage from falling objects and Glass Coverage. The Douglas/Minto accident was a collision loss. So unless Douglas purchased collision coverage from Zipcar, which it sounds like he didn’t, he or his own insurance is liable for the loss.

By: FrankLG

FrankLG — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 21:15:23 +0000

Do we know that Douglas had to pay out of pocket? The law.com article just seems to say that Zipcar was not liable and only Douglas was liable. But I think that the liability insurance provided by Zipcar should take over and cover Douglas’ liability. (I can think of various reasons why Minto might have wanted Zipcar itself to be liable even if she could get money from Douglas via the insurance.)