Weird. Prior to reading this thread, I would have said it's flat-out illegal for a rental car agency to even have the car sitting tagged and titled and available for rent on their lot without state-minimum liability coverage. Meaning I could always perfectly legally decline everything they offer, saying my own insurance has it covered, or my credit card, or I'm just a really risky guy....whatever. I'm legal to drive, even if I buy nothing else.

I thought the upthread Fox renter had simply been bullied and ripped off by an aggressive counter agent.

Is this not the case? In California, some rental cars include *zero* coverage of any kind? Because if that's legal, and today just Fox and their ilk do it, how long until someone sees it pop up in an Enterprise or Thrifty rate? And then a Dollar or Alamo rate? And finally National, Hertz, and/or Avis?