Car damaged in employer parking lot - hit and run - Options?

Archived From: Finance
  • Text Only
Voting History
rated:
I parked my car last Tuesday in parking lot of my employer about 7:15am. I have been parking on the surface lot regularly since January. I noticed a black suv on one side and an older sliver truck on the other side. There was plenty of space between cars. My car was parked there all day. About 3:25pm, I was bringing some things to my car and noticed it had been hit. The sliver older truck was no longer there and the parking space was vacant. The car was damaged on the driver's side rear door. A big crease in the door and sliver paint on it. Damage looks really bad. There was no note left.

I reported it to company security. After 2 days of not hearing anything back and not seeing that truck, I called security to follow up. They told me they reviewed videos from 3 cameras in the parking lot and they could not tell for sure who caused the damage. They claimed the trees were in the way of the cameras. I have the sense they saw the truck but did not have solid proof of the damage being caused by that truck. They were not willing to let me view the video.  I was advised that parking on private property is at my own risk and the company is not responsible. how nice it was to hear that!  I was advised to call the police. The police listened but informed me they do not create a police report. I was told to pick up some blue form and fill it out myself for insurance purposes.  I was informed that hit and run of parked cars happens a lot more than i was aware of.  The police do not come out for hit and run of a parked car unless there was some other crime committed.

one long shot option is to try to find that truck and match the damage to my car. That truck has not been parking there anymore and I wonder if they have stopped driving it to work or are parking somewhere else.  any other suggestions for trying to catch the hit and run driver?  I am aware I may not catch the person and will have to pay for this on my own. There are thousands of people that work at this site and park their cars on the surface lot or parking garage. It would take a miracle to find this truck and person.

one security guard mentioned that i should invest in a 360 camera. she seemed to think it would have captured who did it.  Any ideas on what kind of camera can be mounted inside the car that would capture 360 view? If affordable, this might be a way to have proof.

I think if i damaged someone's car, I would leave a note to explain and offer to pay for the damage. unfortunately, that is not how everyone behaves. Its surprising that this happened at work. I think can happen more often as they are hiring another 1000 people.

 

Member Summary
Most Recent Posts
By many of the arguments given here for not letting outsiders view videos, I suppose United shouldn't turn over footage ... (more)

atikovi (Apr. 13, 2017 @ 8:00a) |

they don't need to, there's like ten cellphone videos!

rufflesinc (Apr. 13, 2017 @ 8:04a) |

Yea but officials want to see all the angles and not just from seated passengers. Like what was the doc like before this... (more)

atikovi (Apr. 13, 2017 @ 8:12a) |

Staff Summary
  • Also categorized in:
Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

Even if you find it, you have to 'prove' they did it. Do you have insurance? Claim and let it go and possibly note the person who did it in the future so you can leave nice little notes of their car.

It's frustrating, but not much you can do without direct evidence. I had a similar situation and the security company said they would only release tapes to police or in response to a subpoena.
I just had to file it with my insurance company as a hit-and-run.

You'll save yourself a lot of time & aggravation if you let it go and let your insurance company take care of it.

OP probably only has liability. Why wern't they letting you view the video? Unless maybe the car belongs to someone there.

There are dozens of car wreck videos online like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmALmLjWIN4


and I always wonder what cameras they use.

atikovi said:   OP probably only has liability. Why wern't they letting you view the video? Unless maybe the car belongs to someone there.
  Not sure id let somebody view the security footage either.
 u show them security footage. Op in rage tracks down driver and somebody gets killed. The suit most def will name the company ... its a hassle for no good reason. #lawyersSUC

Going from dented door to murder is a stretch.

owenscott said:   
atikovi said:   OP probably only has liability. Why wern't they letting you view the video? Unless maybe the car belongs to someone there.
  Not sure id let somebody view the security footage either.
 u show them security footage. Op in rage tracks down driver and somebody gets killed. The suit most def will name the company ... its a hassle for no good reason. #lawyersSUC

 OP's got a crappy pd

We had such a case at work in the past where the guy's parts, car color, and other car color was all over the place (both cars), he still denied, until security (because they were nice that week) pulled the camera logs... Only then did he pay. (with a little extra push)

That guy kept denying over and over even when all items were present, (even the footage), when we said we would go to his boss with the proof, he then paid up.

Unless OP gets a 24 camera in his car to watch it at all times, there is next to nothing he can do against the other guy. That's where the little notes and some jedi mind tricks might get him to pay.

They don't have to give you the footage.  If you want 'round the clock video of your car while you're away, buy a 360 degree camera.   Also, if the damage is less or a little bit more than your deductible, pay for it out of pocket if you plan to fix your car.  Find a shop that won't file it so CarMax doesn't pick it up.  That way, you're good to go when you want to sell it.  

People are loons these days.  Don't try to "catch" the driver.  Just let it go.  That idiot that hit your car probably isn't one to just let it go if you come after him and if you decide to take the narcissist route and not leave this alone, you could end up with a harassment charge on your hands, against you.  

RailroadTrack said:   Find a shop that won't file it so CarMax doesn't pick it up.  .  


Did you mean Carfax?

atikovi said:   Going from dented door to murder is a stretch.
   I purposly made it vague ... so that either person could get killed
 That being said ... there is zero UPSIDE to showing op the tape ... and the downside is very real and possible life changing.
 so no ... security should not show op the tape.
 .... and yes op has a LAME PD ... these are great cases to take. Serious positives for society, the PD, and a sense of justice when the cops catch the driver who did it. The negitives are very low because ... its a hit and run what did u expect.
 we had a deputy spend 8 hours plus on a hit n run for a broken mirror. But we cought him so it was worth it.

In our apartment complex there is a parking space issue . In the evening at times people have no spots to,park. 
So two of them tried to park in one spot and one was able to . 
There was a verbal altercation and everyone thought that was the end of it 
next day the car was keyed and all the tires slashed 
cops caught up with the guy who did it in the next few days 

u never know. Thank god no one was injured . 

RailroadTrack said:   ....People are loons these days.  Don't try to "catch" the driver.  Just let it go.  That idiot that hit your car probably isn't one to just let it go if you come after him....
  QFT.

10char

That'll buff right out

owenscott said:    That being said ... there is zero UPSIDE to showing op the tape ... and the downside is very real and possible life changing.
 so no ... security should not show op the tape.


This attitude is one reason the country is going down the drain.

atikovi said:   owenscott said:    That being said ... there is zero UPSIDE to showing op the tape ... and the downside is very real and possible life changing.
 so no ... security should not show op the tape.


This attitude is one reason the country is going down the drain.



Were not going down the drain.

Common figure of speech.

atikovi said:   Common figure of speech.


Oh really?

Because I thought you meant a literal drain. It seemed you were saying the entire nation was swirling down some sort of colossal world size drain. And that's just silly. I mean if it were then here in Oregon we would see The Pacific Ocean, Mexico, the Atlantic Ocean and Canada moving past one after the other. And all we see is the Pacific so clearly we aren't swirling down a drain at all.

owenscott said:   
atikovi said:   OP probably only has liability. Why wern't they letting you view the video? Unless maybe the car belongs to someone there.
  Not sure id let somebody view the security footage either.
 u show them security footage. Op in rage tracks down driver and somebody gets killed. The suit most def will name the company ... its a hassle for no good reason. #lawyersSUC

  Agree, I manage CCTV system for a non-for-profit and every now and then a neighbor or a random parker would come in and ask to see the CCTV recordings because their garage or car on the street was broken into.  I just tell them to file a police report and let the cops do their job.  If cops show up then I tell them go get back to me once they have a warrant or subpoena and we'll let the organization's attorney deal with it.  I once naively showed a gang fight tape to cops when they asked for it and I had to go to the court to show the judge the video evidence during the trial.  Not a pleasant thing to do because now you're a bad guy in the eyes of rival gangs.  Leaned my lesson.  Unless our attorney gives me okay to show the tape then it's not happening, cops or otherwise.

jerosen said:   atikovi said:   Common figure of speech.Oh really?

Because I thought you meant a literal drain. It seemed you were saying the entire nation was swirling down some sort of colossal world size drain. And that's just silly. I mean if it were then here in Oregon we would see The Pacific Ocean, Mexico, the Atlantic Ocean and Canada moving past one after the other. And all we see is the Pacific so clearly we aren't swirling down a drain at all.

But ... you can see Russia from Alaska.
  

Our car was hit in the parking lot of a restaurant several years ago.  When we walked out the doors of the restaurant we could see immediately that the front end of our car was smashed in.  We called police immediately.  While we were waiting I went inside to see if the restaurant had security cameras on the parking lot (was told no).  When the police officer arrived he tried to convince us that if we filed a police report our insurance would go up.  We were positive he just didn't want to get out of the car in the rain.  We insisted on the police report.  When we contacted our insurance later we were so happy we had the police report, as they required it.  In our state we're required to carry "uninsured motorist" coverage.  This is what covers a hit & run.  We had to pay the $200 deductible and beyond that we were all set.  Never had any increases in our policy resulting from this incident.  

Since no one has answered his question about dash cams.... just do a search for dash cams - BlackVue is a big player. They are a few hundred bucks and run 24/7. I have mine set so it loops on a 6 hour video, and then will keep anything that happens 60 seconds before and after any type of 'bump' on the vehicle. I don't have a "360", it's just a 2 channel (front and rear facing), but it likely would have caught enough in the situation you are discussing. The forward facing camera would likely have captured the vehicle driving out, and you would have a time-stamp of when the damage occurred to match up with the parking lot security.

I work in security for a large company. We have this problem all the time. We will investigate the incident and if anything is visible on CCTV we will notify the offender and they will have to settle it between themselves. A lot of times it is not on camera and we won't do anything. Then sometimes people claim that someone hit the car in the parking lot, but when I view our entry point camera's you can see the damage was on the car prior to them entering the property. Also we never let anyone see the video besides ourselves and select people in HR. We don't even give police the video unless they subpoena it.

pics

I'd bet security is covering for one of their friends who caused the damage.

looks like i'll have to buy some dashcams

Just a couple of anecdotes:

1) I work for a company that has pretty good security. Last time I _thought_ someone dinged my car and they reviewed footage to see if they could find the culprit. They met with me directly for 15 minutes after reviewing the footage and told me they didn't see anyone in the vicinity when I thought the damage happened. They also told me they spend a lot of their time going through video for cases like this because it actually happens often. Most cases when they find the culprit they are able to get them to pay since it was on company property and people tend to care about their jobs. Not sure if it's worth the company's resources to do this, but I thought it was great they looked into this stuff.

2) Once a guy had his door "leaning" on my car in a parking lot at the mall. Saw him, made eye contact, saw a ding on my car and told him to be careful. He was putting his kids in the car and once he was done went up to me to intimidate me (almost as if he was in a boxing match) and told me off. Took a picture of his plates just in case. As we were making our way out of the parking lot at the same time he opened his window and was apologizing profusely because he thought I was gonna call the cops. Just drove off and I hope to never see the guy again.

All in all I don't think it's worth doing anything about it. People out there are crazy and things could get contentious, fast. If they didn't leave a note, it's unlikely they'd pay up after you contacted them anyway. Call me paranoid, but I wouldn't want those people to have my contact information in any capacity.

rufflesinc said:   looks like i'll have to buy some dashcams
  Unless you have parking mode, it's not going to work while you are parked.

When I was a cop, it was super annoying when businesses told us to get a warrant or subpoena to get CCTV footage. If you are just going to comply with the warrant or subpoena anyway, why can't we just skip the formality and you give me the tape? I really don't see a point other than making more work for the police. Is there a benefit to that as a business?

meade18 said:   When I was a cop, it was super annoying when businesses told us to get a warrant or subpoena to get CCTV footage. If you are just going to comply with the warrant or subpoena anyway, why can't we just skip the formality and you give me the tape? I really don't see a point other than making more work for the police. Is there a benefit to that as a business?
Probably just CTA (cover their a).  

meade18 said:   When I was a cop, it was super annoying when businesses told us to get a warrant or subpoena to get CCTV footage. If you are just going to comply with the warrant or subpoena anyway, why can't we just skip the formality and you give me the tape? I really don't see a point other than making more work for the police. Is there a benefit to that as a business?
  Maybe they view it as more likely to protect their employees or customers? If the DA decides to (wrongly) go after someone, challenging the probable cause for issuing the warrant gives another line of defense. And it's reasonable for them to guess that CCTV footage is more likely to show their employees and customers than someone unaffiliated with the business.

Consider the example in my post below, where the perp's employer choose to handle the matter in-house. They did not call the cops. They threatened to call the cops and report this as a hit and run, but they wanted to first give the perp a chance to just take responsibility and leave the cops out of it.

I'm very sorry this happened to you. I had it happen at a large business where I was a customer, and it unfolded very differently. They let me see the tape, but that was not an important step. They recognized that the driver was one of their employees and checked the badge logs around that time. Then they asked me to give them a few hours. The hit-and-run driver called me a few hours later to identify himself and take responsibility, having just had a very unpleasant conversation with his employer about personal responsibility.
xit said:     any other suggestions for trying to catch the hit and run driver?
Two ideas: if your employer leases the property (v. owning it), reach out to the landlord - they might have their own cameras, or they might have some leverage over their tenant.

Second: just file it with your own insurance. If they want to chase reimbursement, they could file a John Doe lawsuit and subpoena the security tape. If you don't have insurance, you could do the same. I would be inclined to include the company and the landlord as defendants, just to up the pressure and potential for recovery, but take your lawyer's advice on that.

NoMoneyInMyWallet said:   
meade18 said:   When I was a cop, it was super annoying when businesses told us to get a warrant or subpoena to get CCTV footage. If you are just going to comply with the warrant or subpoena anyway, why can't we just skip the formality and you give me the tape? I really don't see a point other than making more work for the police. Is there a benefit to that as a business?
Probably just CTA (cover their a).  

  
If I thought that was it, I would understand, but I don't think that's the case. I can't think of a situation where a company or individual would get in trouble (get sued) for giving their security footage to the police after the police asked. And, in a situation where they did get sued for turning it over to the police, there is nothing stopping the person/enitity suing from still suing if the footage was released pursuant to a warrant, subpoena, court order.

ETA: I just thought of the most common situation where this could happen: Where the business is also at fault because of something they did/didn't do and they are opening themselves up to liability in that sense. In that case though, it's totally fair to hate on the business. They essentially have the security for themselves so they're happy to give it to the police if it helps them. But if someone is victimized that isn't them and their security camera catches it, the first thought isn't, "how can we assist that victim as much as possible" Their first thought is, "circle the wagons to make sure we don't get screwed." I get that mindset, I really do. It's a shame that so many Americans have a "Blame this on someone in addition to the perpetrator" attitude. But in this day and age of corporate stewardship, it's a pretty crummy thing to not cooperate with the police when a crime may have occurred. Businesses with these policies should be publicly shamed.

arla said:   
meade18 said:   When I was a cop, it was super annoying when businesses told us to get a warrant or subpoena to get CCTV footage. If you are just going to comply with the warrant or subpoena anyway, why can't we just skip the formality and you give me the tape? I really don't see a point other than making more work for the police. Is there a benefit to that as a business?
  Maybe they view it as more likely to protect their employees or customers? If the DA decides to (wrongly) go after someone, challenging the probable cause for issuing the warrant gives another line of defense. And it's reasonable for them to guess that CCTV footage is more likely to show their employees and customers than someone unaffiliated with the business.

Consider the example in my post below, where the perp's employer choose to handle the matter in-house. They did not call the cops. They threatened to call the cops and report this as a hit and run, but they wanted to first give the perp a chance to just take responsibility and leave the cops out of it.

  
This assumes that the police are always looking for evidence of a crime and always looking to hammer someone. A huge chunk of the time I wanted to see footage was not just to see if I could get a look at the suspect or suspect vehicle, but to see if what the complainant said happened even happened. Also, I don't think your example is along the same line as my example. In your example, the police hadn't been called yet. I'm referring to an example where the police were already involved and investigating an alleged crime. The victim goes to the business and says his car was broken into and asks to see the footage. "Sorry, our policy says we only release footage to the police."  So then the victim calls the police. The police show up and ask to see the footage. "Sorry, our policy says we only release footage pursuant to a court order."

I'm sorry, but a business that says that to the police is a business I am not interested in patronizing.

meade18 said:   
NoMoneyInMyWallet said:   
meade18 said:   When I was a cop, it was super annoying when businesses told us to get a warrant or subpoena to get CCTV footage. If you are just going to comply with the warrant or subpoena anyway, why can't we just skip the formality and you give me the tape? I really don't see a point other than making more work for the police. Is there a benefit to that as a business?
Probably just CTA (cover their a).  

  
If I thought that was it, I would understand, but I don't think that's the case. I can't think of a situation where a company or individual would get in trouble (get sued) for giving their security footage to the police after the police asked. And, in a situation where they did get sued for turning it over to the police, there is nothing stopping the person/enitity suing from still suing if the footage was released pursuant to a warrant, subpoena, court order.

ETA: I just thought of the most common situation where this could happen: Where the business is also at fault because of something they did/didn't do and they are opening themselves up to liability in that sense. In that case though, it's totally fair to hate on the business. They essentially have the security for themselves so they're happy to give it to the police if it helps them. But if someone is victimized that isn't them and their security camera catches it, the first thought isn't, "how can we assist that victim as much as possible" Their first thought is, "circle the wagons to make sure we don't get screwed." I get that mindset, I really do. It's a shame that so many Americans have a "Blame this on someone in addition to the perpetrator" attitude. But in this day and age of corporate stewardship, it's a pretty crummy thing to not cooperate with the police when a crime may have occurred. Businesses with these policies should be publicly shamed.
 

  As I in my earlier post, I once gave cops a copy of the CCTV footage of a gang fight and I ended up going to the court as the evidence owner and showing the court what our camera had captured.  This is from my volunteer work at a non-for-profit...I ended up taking two days off from my work (uncompensated) and now two rival gangs mad at me for having to provide a video of their fight.  So, since then at the advice of the organization's lawyer, no warrant/subpoena, no footage.  You can shame all you want but at the end of the day, the organization has to protect itself first and everything else is secondary.

meade18 said:   
arla said:   
meade18 said:   When I was a cop, it was super annoying when businesses told us to get a warrant or subpoena to get CCTV footage. If you are just going to comply with the warrant or subpoena anyway, why can't we just skip the formality and you give me the tape? I really don't see a point other than making more work for the police. Is there a benefit to that as a business?
  Maybe they view it as more likely to protect their employees or customers? If the DA decides to (wrongly) go after someone, challenging the probable cause for issuing the warrant gives another line of defense. And it's reasonable for them to guess that CCTV footage is more likely to show their employees and customers than someone unaffiliated with the business.

Consider the example in my post below, where the perp's employer choose to handle the matter in-house. They did not call the cops. They threatened to call the cops and report this as a hit and run, but they wanted to first give the perp a chance to just take responsibility and leave the cops out of it.

  
This assumes that the police are always looking for evidence of a crime and always looking to hammer someone. A huge chunk of the time I wanted to see footage was not just to see if I could get a look at the suspect or suspect vehicle, but to see if what the complainant said happened even happened. Also, I don't think your example is along the same line as my example. In your example, the police hadn't been called yet. I'm referring to an example where the police were already involved and investigating an alleged crime. The victim goes to the business and says his car was broken into and asks to see the footage. "Sorry, our policy says we only release footage to the police."  So then the victim calls the police. The police show up and ask to see the footage. "Sorry, our policy says we only release footage pursuant to a court order."

I'm sorry, but a business that says that to the police is a business I am not interested in patronizing.

  So ... did you eagerly offer your cruiser dashcam video to any citizen who asked? 

rufflesinc said:   
meade18 said:   
arla said:   
meade18 said:   When I was a cop, it was super annoying when businesses told us to get a warrant or subpoena to get CCTV footage. If you are just going to comply with the warrant or subpoena anyway, why can't we just skip the formality and you give me the tape? I really don't see a point other than making more work for the police. Is there a benefit to that as a business?
  Maybe they view it as more likely to protect their employees or customers? If the DA decides to (wrongly) go after someone, challenging the probable cause for issuing the warrant gives another line of defense. And it's reasonable for them to guess that CCTV footage is more likely to show their employees and customers than someone unaffiliated with the business.

Consider the example in my post below, where the perp's employer choose to handle the matter in-house. They did not call the cops. They threatened to call the cops and report this as a hit and run, but they wanted to first give the perp a chance to just take responsibility and leave the cops out of it.

  
This assumes that the police are always looking for evidence of a crime and always looking to hammer someone. A huge chunk of the time I wanted to see footage was not just to see if I could get a look at the suspect or suspect vehicle, but to see if what the complainant said happened even happened. Also, I don't think your example is along the same line as my example. In your example, the police hadn't been called yet. I'm referring to an example where the police were already involved and investigating an alleged crime. The victim goes to the business and says his car was broken into and asks to see the footage. "Sorry, our policy says we only release footage to the police."  So then the victim calls the police. The police show up and ask to see the footage. "Sorry, our policy says we only release footage pursuant to a court order."

I'm sorry, but a business that says that to the police is a business I am not interested in patronizing.

  So ... did you eagerly offer your cruiser dashcam video to any citizen who asked? 

  
Most officers don't have control over their footage or else people would complain that they just deleted it after they beat someone up, so they aren't in a position to give it to a citizen.
I personally never had a camera. I volunteered for my department's pilot program in 2014 but left before they bought the cameras. But to your point, one of the reasons I volunteered to be one of the first people to wear a camera is because it would show when I didn't do anything wrong, or show the severity (or lack thereof) if I did, if I were to be accused of something. So, to hypothetically answer your question, YES, I was more than eager to turn over my footage if there was an accusation of any sort of impropriety that may have been caught on my camera.

ach1199 said:   
meade18 said:   
NoMoneyInMyWallet said:   
meade18 said:   When I was a cop, it was super annoying when businesses told us to get a warrant or subpoena to get CCTV footage. If you are just going to comply with the warrant or subpoena anyway, why can't we just skip the formality and you give me the tape? I really don't see a point other than making more work for the police. Is there a benefit to that as a business?
Probably just CTA (cover their a).  

  
If I thought that was it, I would understand, but I don't think that's the case. I can't think of a situation where a company or individual would get in trouble (get sued) for giving their security footage to the police after the police asked. And, in a situation where they did get sued for turning it over to the police, there is nothing stopping the person/enitity suing from still suing if the footage was released pursuant to a warrant, subpoena, court order.

ETA: I just thought of the most common situation where this could happen: Where the business is also at fault because of something they did/didn't do and they are opening themselves up to liability in that sense. In that case though, it's totally fair to hate on the business. They essentially have the security for themselves so they're happy to give it to the police if it helps them. But if someone is victimized that isn't them and their security camera catches it, the first thought isn't, "how can we assist that victim as much as possible" Their first thought is, "circle the wagons to make sure we don't get screwed." I get that mindset, I really do. It's a shame that so many Americans have a "Blame this on someone in addition to the perpetrator" attitude. But in this day and age of corporate stewardship, it's a pretty crummy thing to not cooperate with the police when a crime may have occurred. Businesses with these policies should be publicly shamed.

  As I in my earlier post, I once gave cops a copy of the CCTV footage of a gang fight and I ended up going to the court as the evidence owner and showing the court what our camera had captured.  This is from my volunteer work at a non-for-profit...I ended up taking two days off from my work (uncompensated) and now two rival gangs mad at me for having to provide a video of their fight.  So, since then at the advice of the organization's lawyer, no warrant/subpoena, no footage.  You can shame all you want but at the end of the day, the organization has to protect itself first and everything else is secondary.

  
So you volunteer your time for your community, but don't consider it your civic duty to go to court as a witness (or in this case to authenticate evidence)?

I'm not saying that the prosecutor that needed you for the trial shouldn't be scolded for forcing you to take TWO days off (or the judge if it was his fault). That's ridiculous, but unfortunately that happens from time to time and isn't that unusual. I wish I could say that wasn't your civic duty, but depending on where the trial is taking place, it is. Judges and defense attorneys are usually to blame, but the prosecutor should have stood up for their witness in your situation. Your time should not have been treated so cavalierly.

I'm sure you know from your time as a volunteer with a non-profit that thank-yous are few and far between. The same goes for witnesses to crimes. It sounds like it was a pain in the neck, but it is a thankless job and its a job that our society benefits from when someone does it. I'm sorry your particular experience turned you off.

Skipping 8 Messages...
Yea but officials want to see all the angles and not just from seated passengers. Like what was the doc like before this started. He was stiff as they dragged him off but rambling on during the video of him running back through the aisle. Might have taken some "medication" before the flight.



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2017