Insurance-Provided Rental Car After No-Fault Accident My 2014 Ford Taurus was backed into in a parking lot while it was parked and nobody was inside— the person who caused the accident wasn't injured either. They came into the building we were in, found us, and we exchanged insurance and contact information. I called my insurance, which ultimately had me call their insurance to file this claim. Apparently, when I called their insurance, they were already notified and had a claim started. As we walked through the steps to get the damage taken care of, we got onto the subject of rental vehicles since they were going to provide one as I was entirely not at fault. They stated that they'd only cover a mid-size four-door sedan unless there were accommodations that needed to be met. My immediate confusion/concern was that they damaged my full-size sedan, which is expected to be out for 3-4 days, but that they were essentially downgrading my daily transportation to save on costs. Question: Would I have any ground to push back and request a full-size sedan since that's the type of car they damaged? The only major thing that comes to my mind is an accommodation for my height. I'm 6'5" (198cm~), so I'd expect that the vehicle should have a comfortable amount of room for me to sit up; and, even more important, not be so compact that my legs cannot drive comfortably. Even my car is already on the edge of my legs being comfortable on driving, so a smaller vehicle seems like a potential risk/downside. Edit (Outcome): I did end up getting the rental upgraded to a full-size sedan. The adjuster mentioned it was "approved to accommodate physical needs". He did also mention that if I hauled/towed things for work, or had a large family, that they would have approved it for those reasons too.
As a former rental car employee I can explain why this is. Cars that are rented to customers for insurance reasons (accidents, etc) are supposed to match the size of the car that was damaged as close as possible. I'm speaking for one rental car company in particular here but I'm assuming others have a similar policy but every 2 years old the car is it goes down a size in rental. So your 2014 would and could be considered a "standard" size or even "compact depending" on what is available on that rental lot or how that agent is feeling. With that being said, I've seen customers complain to insurance companies to get bigger cars sizes or even pay out of pocket for larger vehicles. In most insurance rental situations, the company provides "X" amount of dollars per day, generally between $20-25. These insurance companies have deals with rental agencies to secure rates that align with these low daily costs - the same car they get for $20 a day would cost a walk in customer double or triple that. You could use that $20-25 a day towards the cost of your rental and then just pay the difference on the larger car if you'd like. So to answer your question, yes you can push back all you want. Direct your concerns to their insurance company. In my experience, I've seen more often than not they agree to the larger vehicle. You can also petition the rental agent to let you get the larger car for the cheaper rate - however bear in mind these rental agents hear this 100 times a day and this can be your quick ride into that dusty PT Cruiser that nobody wants in the corner of the lot.
I assume this is a used car, and that your sales agreement doesn't have a 'time is of the essence' clause that specifies a specific deadline. In that case, they will have 'reasonable time' to perform the work. Unfortunately, there is no legal definition of what would be reasonable (the time necessary to repair a locomotive is much longer than the time needed to repair a torn screen door). Rather, the question would be, given the nature of the time, what you be typical, what would be surprising or shockingly long, and what extenuating factors are there. If you happen to know a lot of mechanics, you can get a ballpark figure. Let's say that it has been 3 weeks, then that is probably unreasonably long, so you could sue them for breach of contract. If it has less than a week, it's not so clear. You might simply ask then when they will get the problem fixed.
Such &quot;warranties&quot; are generally subject to separate laws, and they are not treated as a subcase of &quot;car insurance&quot;. Whereas homeowners insurance, vehicle liability insurance and so on are regulated in all states, extended warranties are regulated in over half of the states. There is a model law which tends to inspire state legislators in writing their own laws, and here is an instantiation in Washington state. At the outset, the law says that certain things are not covered, including warranties, maintenance agreements and service contracts (what then is covered??). There may be &quot;required content&quot;, for example Service contracts shall state the procedure to obtain service or to file a claim, including but not limited to the procedures for obtaining prior approval for repair work, the toll-free telephone number if prior approval is necessary for service, and the procedure for obtaining emergency repairs performed outside of normal business hours or provide for twenty-four-hour telephone assistance. There are sections specific to motor vehicles, which could be relevant, for example &quot;A service contract provider shall not deny a claim for coverage based upon the service contract holder's failure to properly maintain the vehicle, unless the failure to maintain the vehicle involved the failed part or parts&quot;. At the bottom of the Model Act document is a list of statuses in the various states: it's status in Connecticut is nonexistence, as of July 2014 (and no signs of such a law having been subsequently passed). There is a general law about express warranties, which doesn't impose any content restrictions on such contracts. So in CT, it depends on what the contract says.
[L]et's say you almost get run over by a car[; t]here was a very real probability that you may have been runover […], but you didn't. Why isn't there some civil repercussions for that? Construing the first question broadly, and in line with the one reading &quot;[w]hy isn't there some civil repercussions for [a missed although very real probability of a car run-over]?&quot;, the question is, admittedly, based on a few incorrect premises. There are &quot;repercussion&quot; some of them being of criminal nature (reckless driving, vehicular assault etc.), and others may become of civil nature as follows: Common law tort of negligence — Mere threat of harm can be harm for purposes of damages &quot;“When there is a breach of duty, &quot;a person who is in the path of negligent conduct and reasonably fears for his or her own safety may recover for resulting emotional distress.&quot; In re Air Crash Disaster Near Cerritos, Cal., 973 F.2d 1490, 1493 (9th Cir. 1992). ” […] See Potter, 863 P.2d at 833 (George, J., concurring and dissenting) (discussing hypothetical pedestrian narrowly avoiding speeding car and indicating that threat of injury is the relevant issue); Wooden v. Raveling, 71 Cal. Rptr. 2d 891, 897-98 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (quoting Potter hypothetical and holding plaintiff was not precluded from relief simply because car did not actually hit her) (Taylor v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc. (9th Cir. 2015) 599 F. App'x 664, 2) (bold type added) Accordingly, broadly construing the question so as to effect the greatest scope of the spotting of damages, one may sue, although not for injuries per se, but instead damages under an emotional distress legal theory and its particular categories like anxiety, depression, recurring nightmares, sleeplessness, anger, angst etc. depending on the actual facts of the case, and typically supported by expert testimony when possible. Strictly construing the question, the mere possibility or even probability of injuries do not merit a cause of action for damages in and of themselves, as such damages never occurred. It may be possible that in certain scenarios the mere possibility is so outrageous that it exceeds all bounds of a civilized society, that nominal damages, say, of $1 are awarded and punitive damages are awarded so as to deter such conduct, but even in that case such a hypothetical case the cause of action will not be the damages under a personal injury tort, but one for nominal damages and for punitive damages even if the factual underpinnings are the same. Standing Standing is one's positive relation to at least one event that is the basis of a legal proceeding in a court, that is, one being the presumptive subject of some sort of wrongdoing that merits their recognition as a party to a legal proceeding. The term there would have been &quot;damages&quot; instead of standing. Why doesn't law take into account probability? It does. Rarely enumerated probabilities other than in case of the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof where the quality of the evidence must weigh in favor of the one who has the burden of proof, in other words the fact finders job is to decide whether something is greater or smaller than 50 percent probability. Although it is rather the exception than the rule, probabilities other than the greater-than-50-percent standard also appear here an there in the judicial process, for example, in asylum cases “&quot;[t]o effect a well-founded fear [from persecution so as will constitute protected for purposes of U.S. asylee or refugee status], a threat need not be statistically more than fifty-percent likely [to have been made; however,] the [U.S.] Supreme Court has suggested that even a one-tenth possibility of persecution might effect a well-founded fear.&quot; Lim,224 F.3d at 934-935 (citing INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca,480 U.S. 421, 430, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987)). Kaiser v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 653, 658 (9th Cir. 2004) (see also INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, [“ &quot;Let us ... presume that it is known that in the applicant's country of origin every tenth adult male person is either put to death or sent to some remote labor camp.... In such a case it would be only too apparent that anyone who has managed to escape from the country in question will have 'well-founded fear of being persecuted' upon his eventual return”]) In less enumerated forms many other aspects of the judicial process rely on probabilities.
Landlord-tenant laws are state-specific, and given the number of states it's impractical to scan all of the laws, but based on a reading of a handful of such laws I doubt that there is any law requiring landlords to pay the oil for a rented house. (The matter would be different if there was a multi-unit building with no individual control over temperature, thus pooled fuel usage). It's not clear to me what you assumed the agreement means, where it says "N/A". Perhaps you believed at the time that the place had a different heating system, and you relied on that assumption. In that case, you might be able to go to court and have the contract voided, and you could pick another place to live. If the "options" are specified so that some things are assigned to tenant, some to landlord, and some are N/A, that would especially lead to the reasonable belief that there was no oil heat in the house. But if the only indications were "landlord" versus "n/a", then you could interpret "n/a" as meaning "not the responsibility of the landlord". Analogously, if the agreement only lists "tenant" and "n/a" then a reasonable interpretation would be that this means "the tenant pays" versus "the tenant does not pay". This reasoning would also have to survive the alternative interpretation that the tenant pays for everything, except that n/a means "there isn't one of these". In other words, the meaning of the term might be determinable from the overall context of what's in the agreement. Since the house does not come with a full tank (as with car rentals), the question of what to do with the residual oil at the end of the lease should also be specified. Unlike gas or electric, you're not just paying for actual consumption, you're paying for potential consumption, and you would have an interest in the remaining half-tank at the end of the lease. You could just walk away from that investment (pumping it out and taking it with you could be illegal, since the stuff is kind of a contaminant), or you could have an agreement where the landlord buys the oil back from you, but that should be specified in the agreement (and I assume it isn't). This kind of consideration could support a claim that you reasonably believed that there was no oil system (if there were, there would be some term relating to your interest in the residual oil), or even a belief that the landlord would pay the cost of the oil (since he ultimately gets the remaining oil at the end of the lease). You attorney (hint) should advise you how to approach this.
It's right in the contract In the event I fail to take delivery of the vehicle purchased by me within forty-eight (48) hours after I have been notified by you that it is ready for delivery and pay the total contract price in the manner indicated, my deposit in the amount of $300 may, at your option, be retained by you to compensate you in whole or in part for any loss sustained by you. Your right to retain my deposit shall be in addition to and not instead of any other right or remedy provided by applicable law including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the sale of the car or truck I agree to purchase. If the amount of my deposit exceeds actual damages sustained by you, you will promptly refund the difference to me. The car was ready on day 3. As a result, the Customer was obligated to pay and take delivery of the vehicle until day 5. Because the customer did not follow through with the purchase, the deposit is used to compensate the salesman in the amount that covers the costs of preparing the sale and having the car on the lot for those days that the salesman could not sell it to someone else. At the end of day 5, the contractual obligation to hold the car for the customers in exchange for the deposit ended, and the other clauses of the contract (car for rest of payment) become void. The car salesman is in his right to sell the car because the actual sales contract has fallen through and the holding fee/deposit expired, as the very quoted paragraph shows. Based on the final sentence of the quoted portion of the contract, to get a part of the deposit back, one would need to establish that the losses are less than the contractually fixed amount of 300 USD. When I had my car at the workshop and could not get it back on the day it was done with repairs, I was also informed that holding my car for more than a day would incur storage fees of up to 15 € per day. Similarly, the last time I bought a car, I was told that the sale included a fresh inspection and oil. Those are costs to the seller and can be accounted for in the deposit. The inspection costs about ~120 € for a new TÜV certificate and exhaust check and the materials for an oil change come for about 70 €. This leaves about 70 € cover for the mechanic and salesman's wages for about one hour. That's 300 €, or about 330 USD today. As such, costs to prepare a contract and transfer, inspect the car for roadworthiness as well as storage fees most likely are reasonably assessed to be in the 300 USD area.
Agreement You say: my landlord added a clause stating: &quot;All moving must be done in rear of driveway or pay $250 (near basement door)&quot; Was this addition made at the time you signed the lease or subsequently? This matters because the terms of a contract cannot be changed unilaterally, they must be agreed. If the change happened after the lease was signed then , unless you agreed to it, it has no effect whatsoever. Since that resolution is boring; I will assume that it was always there. Enforcability Is this actually enforceable, since I did park in a public space and not necessarily on his property? Yes, it is enforceable. People can agree in a contract to do (or not do) anything so long as that thing is not illegal - that is what a contract is; a legally enforceable agreement for two people to do certain things. You agreed &quot;All moving must be done in rear of driveway ... (near basement door)&quot; and you didn't do what you agreed to do. Therefore you broke a term of the contract. It doesn't matter that you don't know why he wanted you to do this or if it was reasonable or if it meant that you couldn't use your parent's truck - if these were issues for you they should have been raised before you agreed to do it. If the clause said &quot;When moving out you will wear a blue double breasted suit with a yellow and purple bow tie&quot; then that is what you must do. Consequences There are a number of options open to the wronged party when the other party breaches a term of a contract. The most relevant in these circumstances is to sue for damages. So how much are damages? Well, they are an amount to restore the wronged party to the position they would have been in if you hadn't broken the agreement. In situations where damages can be hard to calculate, contracts can make a provision for liquidated damages; a pre-agreed amount of what the damage will be: in this case &quot;$250&quot;. However: In the United States, Section 2-718(1) of the Uniform Commercial Code provides that, in contracts for the sale of goods: Damages for breach by either party may be liquidated in the agreement but only at an amount which is reasonable in the light of the anticipated or actual harm caused by the breach, the difficulties of proof of loss, and the inconvenience or nonfeasibility of otherwise obtaining an adequate remedy. A term fixing unreasonably large liquidated damages is void as a penalty. This largely mirrors the common law rule, which applies to other types of contracts under the law of most US states. On the face of it, it would appear that $250 may be &quot;unreasonably large&quot; given the nature of the breach where it appears that the landlord has actually suffered no damage.
No Auto insurance covers loss or damage to the vehicle - the vehicle is neither lost nor damaged. The risk you describe is called title insurance and is normally bought for real estate.