lihue airport car rentals

lihue airport car rentals
5th Hawaii

Also in Kaneshiro v. Alamo Rent A Car, 63 the Court concluded that although the Hawaii No-Fault Act was designed to bring state of public policy, each vehicle for minimal coverage, the statute was, however, no data on the two insurers, the primary responsibility for a potential double-coverage situation.65 This results from the examination of the insurer to other insurance clause, with the provision of secondary liability car agreement66 the court found that no other insurance for collector was under the lease and that the tenant's personal reporting was primary.67

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

It should be noted, however, that the court to participate in Kaneshiro was appealed if it was with a similar decision by another court in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Alamo Rent A Car.68 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 69 but was willing to make a decision on the issue of secondary liability as they believed the problem was still an open question condition. As a result, the Court certified the question whether the secondary liability provision in Alamo's rental agreement was the Hawaii Supreme Court.

As of today, the Hawaii Supreme Court has no provision.

6. Florida

Quite unlike the problems in the cases discussed above, in the Allstate Insurance Co. v. RJT companies, 70 the court was not only asked to determine whether a secondary liability provision was valid, but also whether the provision could make it to the tenant of the insurer's obligation to protect the landlord in a dispute against them by third parties parties.71

In resolving these issues, the Court stated that even if it is the maintenance of secondary liability provision that primary liability to the tenant of the insurer, but it was not prepared to extend the concept to a shift to the tenant of the insurer the obligation to defend the car rental company .2 in support of the holding, the court noted that Florida law is unique in imposing on the tenant's obligation to provide primary insurance in the event of an accident, 73 but that this is not the Duty to defend.74

7. Illinois

In Insurance Car Rentals, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co., 75 Court of Illinois in accordance with the majority in relation to secondary liability. When asked to resolve whether the secondary liability clause in the rental agreement76 or other insurance clause "enforced, the Court held that no statutes to the contrary, the secondary liability of the tenant and enforce the insurance was required to provide the primary .78

To support the holding, the Court stressed that the rental car company was able to forgo the network of secondary liability provision because they had offered the tenant a reasonable insurance for an additional fee, the tenant refused to rely on his personal insurance for coverage.79 to the court, that was enough for the tenant's personal insurance primarily liable.80 8th Wisconsin