car rental bwi airport

27The court noted that Hertz, in her capacity as a self-insurer, the insurance quotes of at least § 16,052 of California's Vehicle Code, which states:" Any person in whose name more than 25 motor vehicles are registered may be regarded as self-insurer by obtaining a certificate of self insurance issued by the department of motor vehicles. "" ID. 12. Similarly, Ms. Gutierrez, the renter of the vehicle, also satisfied the minimum insurance required by their coaches insurance agreement, the insurance to compensate for injuries resulting from an auto accident "for the ownership, maintenance or use of cars." "ID. At 415th 281d. At 420th

Most Popular Articles in Reference
The importance of understanding organizational culture
Credit card attitudes and behaviors of college students
What factors attract foreign direct investment will be?
Libraries need relationship marketing - marketing concept of mutual interest, ...
How to monitor performance goals: employee reviews are more than criticism
More »

Display

29Mercury was the insurance company insured by the tenant in this case.

3 "" Mercury argued that since Hertz was the insured owner of the vehicle itself is the primary coverage based on language in section 11580.9 (d), which stated: [W] here two or more measures provide valid and collectible liability insurance for the same vehicles, motor vehicle or in an event of which a liability loss, it is conclusive that the insurance that the policy in which the motor vehicle is described or rated as an owned vehicle is primary and the insurance which is characterized by a different policy or the policy.

But the court rejected this argument, because the vehicle in question, which is owned by Hertz was neither "and assessed" either in the Mercury policy or certificate of Hertz selfinsurance. Id at 12-13. 3 "" ID. 13th 32ld.

33Although the court was not expressly use private contract, the parties are committed to the unique conditions of the contract, in which both parties agreed that courts around the country have agreed to this legal maxim, to determine whether a lease - car companies could their liability based on negligence of the lessee. See Kaneshiro v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc., 909 F. Supp. 752 (D. Hawaii 1996); Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Empire Ins. Co., 616 NYS2d 136 (Sup. Ct.1994); Defrank v. Davis, 306 NYS2d 827 (App. Div. 1970).

3468 Cal. Rptr. 2d 725 (Ct. App. 1998). 351d. on 726th

36The after Insurance Code reads as follows: "For the purposes of this Article, a certificate of self-insurance pursuant to Section 16053 of the Vehicle Code or a deposit of cash pursuant to Section 16054.2 of the Vehicle Code is ... as a policy of motor vehicle Insurance... "Id 727th

3 "" The lease is in its application: "The" personal injury / property damage to third parties Responsibility: Owners do not expand or in any insurance to tenants, or persons authorized operator through this agreement. "" ID. on 729th 381d. at 730.

3931 Cal. Rptr. 2d 88 (Ct. App. 1994). In Grand, the Court of Appeals that the rental car company is primarily responsible, because the car was in dispute in its certificate of self insurance. As a result, California's Insurance Code Section 11580.9, and the court finds that the insurance carrier only on non-owned auto protection, while the rental car company in the first place for the collection of the vehicle. ^ * Id at 730.