Is it legal in the US to force you to buy insurance (as a bundle) for something you already have insurance for? For example, a company that rents out car parking spaces requires that I will also buy insurance for the property inside my car, while I already have insurance for the property inside my car. For example, the company may require that the coverage for the property inside my car may only be part of home owner insurance, but not car insurance. If the coverage for the property inside my car is part of my car insurance, the company does not accept this coverage and forces me to buy another policy that covers again the property in the car, which is already covered by my car insurance.
Each of the 50 states plus non-states has their own laws, but there is nothing general about contract or other law in the US that forces a rental facility to accept customers who don't have / won't get the insurance that they require. It is a reasonable requirement, because it protects their interest insofar as angry customers might sue the facility because their car was broken into, and many of them would mistakenly believe that their car insurance covers theft or destruction of contents (thus leading to a desire to sue, to cover the property loss). It may be just too much hassle and too risky for them to assume the correctness of a customer's claim that they already have adequate coverage and will maintain said coverage, with no practical means to verify the claim.
I doubt that they are legally required to get your VAT as a condition of registration. However, they are a private company, and they are allowed to attach almost any restriction they want to registration. It is more likely that they require your VAT for some of the business interactions that they expect will happen after you register for the site and have decided to make it a condition of registration.
Although the local mechanic was suggested by you he was paid by the dealer, and hence was acting as the dealer's agent in the repair. If the dealer did not want to accept this then they could have simply insisted on doing the repair themselves. The dealer is responsible for the actions of their agent, and they cannot run out the clock on the warranty simply by failing to repair the fault. You could write to the dealer saying that you will accept their third repair on the understanding that the fault and two attempts to repair it predate the expiration of the warranty and hence you retain the right to return the car if this third attempt at repair does not remedy the problem. Or you could simply insist on returning the car for a refund. If they won't take it, write a letter stating that either they agree to take it back or you will take action in the county court to recover your money. Most businesses will conceed at this point because spending time in court is expensive even if you win. I say "write" because that means they can't deny agreeing later on. You can of course hand them the letter yourself rather than sending it by post.
Bearing in mind that you are legally required to have liability insurance in Wisconsin (or a surety bond), and the reason for that is so that people can know with reasonable certainty (and not just hope) that if someone plows into them the guy at fault will cover the damage, you would expect that insurance policies can't be written so that the insurance company can wash their hands of the matter. So per Wisc. Stat 632.32(6)(b) in the liability insurance section of state insurance law, No policy may exclude from the coverage afforded or benefits provided... Any use of the motor vehicle for unlawful purposes, or for transportation of liquor in violation of law, or while the driver is under the influence of an intoxicant ...
No While you can be bound to terms you had the opportunity to read and didn’t, you cannot be bound to terms that you did not have the opportunity to read. That doesn’t mean that you don’t have a contract but it will be on different conditions to those in the undisclosed terms. For a contract to be valid, the parties must agree on the essential terms, for a phone contract, what service the phone company is giving and how much the consumer pays. Incidental terms can be left undefined and they will, if needed, be filled in by a court with reasonable terms. However, this only happens to the extent necessary to give effect to the primary purpose of the contract. For example, late fees or termination fees are not strictly necessary (common law principles of damages for breach of contract work just fine) so, if the undisclosed terms include them, they will be unenforceable. Notwithstanding, it’s quite likely that refusing to disclose in the advance violates state or Federal consumer protection laws against misleading or deceptive conduct.
united-states I am skiing and cause unintentional injury to another slope patron/client. How would I protect myself from being sued? Use reasonable care to avoid harming others, and follow all applicable rules of the ski area. Keep your equipment in good repair. Don't ski when you are drunk or high or in circumstances you can't handle. Try not to collide with people. If you do collide with someone do what you can to mitigate their injuries, identify ways to document facts favorable to you, and promptly contact your insurance company. Is there insurance if sued that could protect my assets if found negligent and cover legal costs of lawyer and trial, regardless if found negligent? For this, you need liability insurance. In the United States, liability insurance is typically included in homeowner's or renter's insurance. These kinds of liability insurance typically cover the cost of a legal defense of a covered claim and any damages awarded or paid in a settlement of those claims (up to the policy limits). These kinds of liability insurance would typically cover liability arising from a skiing accident and most other claims for negligence, but would typically not cover claims related to intentional acts or a criminal prosecution. A homeowner's or renter's insurance policy would also not typically cover vehicle accidents (e.g. your liability while operating a snowmobile), claims related to a business or an occupation, or claims related to contractual liability.
No one is required to have Public Liability Insurance If a contractor (or householder) wants PL insurance they are free to take it out but there is no legal requirement to do so. There may be contractural requirements. For example, a mortgagee may require a mortgagor to have property insurance and PL usually comes bundled with this (but check your policy because it may not be so). Or a householder principal may require their contractor to have PL insurance but a wise principal also requires evidence of cover. Whether a person has PL insurance or not, they can be liable to the public for damage. Insurance does not remove liability, an insurer just indemnifies their insured from the costs of defending or settling a claim. Liability In general, the head of claim for liability is typically negligence. Whether a person is negligent depends on if they had a duty of care and failed in that duty among other things (see Is there liability for pure accidents?). The contractor could be liable. The householder could be liable. Both could be liable. Neither could be liable. In normal circumstances, a plaintiff will sue everyone they can think of. At that point, it would be nice to have insurance so you can say to your insurer: &quot;You deal with it.&quot;
There is a clear conflict of interest - or the potential for the appearance of a conflict of interest - here. On the one hand, you are supposed to be looking for a good deal for your employer - within reason, of course. On the other hand, you want to make as much money for yourself as you can by claiming as high a rental fee as is reasonable. Most employers have policies against this. This is like hiring your side company as a vendor. You should follow your employer's policies for making sure his is totally above board, or just stay elsewhere.