|
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
Well....the worst thing that could happen is that you get into a car accident in the US where you put the other person into a coma for 20 years. The Rental company would usually cover the liability upto their limits but since the vehicle shouldn't have been there they probably would only pay the lowest limit of legal liability. which could be as low as 30,000.00. You would be responsible for the rest of the legal liability, which could run into the millions of dollars.....but I wouldn't worry....its a worse case scenario |
Actually, this really isn't a concern. I used to have the liability account for a national car rental company... regardless of whether or not you take the vehicle into the US you will still have access to their full limits. While what Scott says above could be argued by the rental company and their insurer it wouldn't hold up in court... the Ontario courts have ruled that if one has permission to drive another's vehicle then the owner is vicariously liable for that driver's actions while driving the vehicle. Scott's argument is based on permissive use... the argument by the rental company would be that you didn't have their permission to drive the vehicle into the US; however, the courts have ruled that an owner either gives permission to drive or does not, they cannot set conditions or limitations on their permission; subsequently, you would be entitled to the full limits of the policy.
Fahad, the worst case scenario is that you'd be on for the value of the vehicle if you write it off.
___________________
| quote: | Originally posted by RickyM
you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about. |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down 
|
|