Originally Posted by Reindeerflame
Sounds good, except ordinary persons cannot reasonably be held to know what's in the fine print. The minor transgression likely would be offset by the carrier not doing due diligence to verify that the customer is eligible for a discount. If this is really important to the carrier, they need to be more proactive, such as reading the contract terms to the customer before the customer signs.
therein lies the problem. Its not Avis that is responsible for the LDW portion of the claims, esp one that is part of a group.
1> Group negotiates and agrees to fund/create a LDW and discount code with Avis. Avis, is only a booking agent for the policy, not the guarantor, nor the insurance grantor.
These policies are 3-5k for LDW anyway, so someone would likely incurr 10k in legal fees or more chasing down only 3-5k.
2> In order to get an AWD number with a discount, the company/association signs a letter absovling avis rent a car from the litigation of such claims, listing avis as a reseller of services only. So it would be the renters duty to duke it out with the insurance company.
If you USED to be part of a specific group or company, then you could easily get away with it. "no one told me to stop using it."
If you were never part of the specific group or company, then the insurance underwriter could easily, and legally, deny you. Then the burden of proof would be on you to prove that either avis, the group, or the guarantor did not properly inform you of the rental car rules and regulations.
3> reasonable or not, you are provided the contract information at the time of rental, and you can choose to not read it, or read it. Caveat Emptor. Many millions of dollars and stolen identities, emails, and "sold goods" have been done in the fine print of contracts. Its your responsiblity to know what you are signing.
A correlative "small print" issue, It states on every contract "no off paved road driving." Yet they rent 4wd vehicles and jeeps. But if you vehicle was damaged going off road, the LDW would not cover. I routinely see this clause invoked to deny ldw benefits. The use of a AWD via "fraud or misrepresentation" would be no different.