Originally Posted by ezmonee
Actually, Venk,Deelmakur, I like this change. Its very specific and informs the customer exactly what will happen. But I can understand why people are worried about it.
As an Avis franchisee (?) I can see why you would like it.
For one, Paragraph 9 deals with prohibited use of the car. essentially, if you buy LDW or not, if you violate the contract, your responsible for damages.
The above is correct but not the whole story. If you do not have LDW, you are responsible period. If you have LDW then if you break para 9, then you are responsible. It is not having the LDW part that is worrisome because of the new option they have to just sell it than repair it.
Second, fare market value of the car is not "new" price, its the sale price of the car at wholesale. I can go into a long littany of why they are doing this, but the short answer is "if they fix it and sell it, it costs more to you and avis than selling it as is and using the running average of similar vehicles sold at market to pay the difference". After years of study on the issue, the average cost to the consumer under the new scenario is $500 less than to repair. Scary thought, but true.
Misleading. If a car gets damaged, then the customer (or his insurance company) picks up the tab of the repair. Earlier, they didn't pick up the tab of the reduced value of selling the car. In your comparison, you are comparing the total cost of repair and sell to just sell before repair. This is an advantage to Avis but not the the customer (or his insurance company).
Since Avis has the complete control of how much they sell it at and recovering the difference from the consumer, they have no incentive to sell it at a decent price as opposed to having an arrangement with a wholesaler to get it cheap (Avis doesn't lose by doing this, the customer gets shafted). Why would they do it, because there are any number of wholesalers willing to get damaged cars cheap and provide other favors to Avis.
Most insurance companies will not pay for such arbitrary differences.
In the hit and run scenario, the damage to the car must exceed the turnback cap of the car before they wont fix it.
Just because you say it? There is nothing in the language that prevents them from selling a car that has minor bumper scratch to a wholesaler cheap and then recovering the difference from the customer. Why do it? any number of reasons. Late model car... gas guzzler.. not profitable to rent, etc. This would be a scam. If they really wanted to sell it only when the repair costs are more expensive they could have used the same language they used for IL and NY where the AG would be on them quick if they tried to pull such a thing.
A good rule of thumb, the accident damage (at cost) would need to be greater than 1/5th the cost of the car new. So a 20,000 car (malibu) would need to take a hit greater than 3300 before they would sell "as is" and not repair it.
This is assuming the car is as rentable after fixing it. Nothing in the language prevents them from selling ("in sole discretion') even if the damge is smaller. This would be preferred if the car was at the end of its rental service life, or it was a car that had gne out of fashion or was a lemon with service probems etc. If the intent was to take the lesser of the price difference and the repair cost from the consumer, then the exception for IL and NY would be the norm not exceptions. Since they have worded it for differently for all other states, I have to assume that they reserve the right to sell it even if it would have been cheaper to repair it. This is a scam.
So in essence, it would need to be a pretty damn big hit and run. Second, it would be your credit card or personal insurance's job to argue final remittance cost.
Not true. The credit card's agreement with the cardholder is to cover damages to the car and "to make it whole" not provide umbrella indemnity for any arbitrary way in which AVIS computes the damages. The credit card will simply pay for the repair estimates as per their agreement with the cardholder. if the cardholder has agreed to a different term with AVIS to pay them more than the reapir costs, the card company won't need to fight it with AVIS, they will simply limit their liability to the repair estimates for the car and leave the cardholder stuck with stupid rule he agreed to. Credit cards will be OK with the language used for IL and NY. Everywhere else, the customer faces a risk.