car rental charlotte airport

in one of the oldest cases on point, the Supreme Court in Wisconsin v. Milwaukee Huset Dressed Beef Co., 8 'confirmed a secondary liability provision contained in a lease if the tenant violates a third party after the wheel of leased vehicle fell off.82 To support the holding, the court noted, as many courts then, that since no law in conflict with the landlord it to a shift of primary liability to the lessee, the insurance company, then the terms of the agreement are binding .83

9. Nevada

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

Consistent with the foregoing cases, the recent decision of the Alamo Renta Car, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., the Supreme Court of Nevada upheld the use of secondary liability provisions to transfer primary responsibility to the tenant, the insurer . In its determination, the court noted that nothing in Nevada law for the priority of coverage between landlords and tenants' insurance, 85 the conditions for secondary liability provision and control of the tenant's insurer primarily liable.sb

10. New York

New York has the highest binding court found that car rental companies are not required to extend the insurance to the tenant. For example, car rental companies may shift the primary burden of the reporting operator's personal insurer in the context of a properly formulated secondary liability clause. Setting this rule, the Court of Appeals in Morris v. Snappy Car Rental, 87 was a fairly unique situation in which the tenant was not the operator, but a passenger in the rented vehicle when the accident occurred.ss

In the course of determining whether the insurer of the renter or the rental company should be primarily committed to the Court finds that New York insurance provision89 not require an owner of a vehicle with a car rental company to extend coverage to permissive users.90 While recognizing the ability of companies to rent a car to primary liability through the use of a secondary liability provision, 9 'the court does not permit such a provision for the operation at the expense of the victims, despite the fact that the actual victim renter.92 Thus, the court, the landlord to his tenant only to minimum legal requirements to which the tenants and their insurers assumed primary liability.93

After the Morris case, the Supreme Court in Miller v. Hertz Corporation Sullivan94 noted that the secondary liability provision, which is the primary supply to the minimum legal requirements for an additional fee, not contrary to public policy and enforceable in accordance with these conditions, 95 in Miller, the insurer argued that the secondary liability provision was, in fact, another provision of insurance, because they assumed primary responsibility of the tenant when the fee was not paid. Therefore, claiming at least, Hertz was required to contribute to a loss. The Supreme Court, however, explicitly stated that self-insurance is not insurance and the only insurance was that the tenant, the need for primary coverage.96