• filter:

CDW Claim: Dispute over Covered Loss

  • Page :
  • 1
  • Text Only
  • Search this Topic »
Voting History
rated:
SUMMARY: Insurance company (sort of) denied CDW claim, arguing that tire damage from a collision with a rock was NOT a "collision."  Of course, I think otherwise.

CC offered a CDW

Rented auto with CC.

My rental collided with a rock (on a freeway, hidden behind a curve), causing tire damage ('flat tire"). 

Got a bill for around $178: (TIre $83, Roadside Ass't $70, Admin Fee: $25)

Filed CDW claim.

Got a check for $83, but denials for roadside ass't/admin fees  (no reason given for denials.....just a "We never cover that stuff").

Language from CDW policy: 

"As an eligible Insured* you are eligible to receive reimbursement for repair or replacement of a Rented Automobile***, as a result of Collision Damage** to a Rented Automobile." 

"Collision damage means the direct and accidental damage to a Rented Automobile caused by upset or collision with another object. Collision Damage does not include loss caused by missiles, falling objects, fire,   theft or larceny, explosion, earthquake, windstorm, hail, water, flood,   malicious mischief or vandalism, riot or civil commotion."


Filed BBB complaint, claiming Roadside ass't/admin fees were covered.  Reasons: Roadside changed tire damaged by a "collision." Therefore, Roadside performed a "repair."  Admin. fee reimbursed rental agency for managing a claim resulting from a "collision."  Therefore, Admin. fee was covered.  Additionally, CDW policy did NOT exclude either.

Insurance company's response: Check for new tire was an ERROR.  There was no coverage, since policy excluded tire damage, unless part of a covered loss.

Exact response to my BBB complaint:

"Damage to tires is specifically excluded under the policy, unless the tire damage co-exsists with a covered loss (ex. Motor vehicle collision damaging the left rear quarter panel and tire). There was no collision in this case, only a rock puncturing a tire. Therefore, the payment of $82.50 for tire replacement was done in error. However, we will not be requesting a refund of that payment.

Roadside assistance and administrative fees are not Collision Damage. If this had been a covered loss, they would not have been paid for that reason."


Language from CDW policy regarding exclusions:

 "damage to tires unless the loss be coincident with a covered loss."


My argument:

A rock is an "object."

When rental struck rock, there was a collision, since two objects met with great force.  If a collision didn't occur, then there was at least an "upset," since my tire stop functioning normally.

Roadside ass't/admin fees may not be "collision damage."  But I didn't claim they were.  I said they are covered, since they are connected to a "repair" resulting from a "collision/upset."

(I doubt check was sent in "error." Original claims' adjuster had policy sitting in front of her.  And, as we know, insurance companies look for any reason to deny coverage.  Real problem: CDW policy is ambiguous. One adjuster thought there WAS coverage.  But another one thought otherwise).

Thoughts?

EDIT: Fixed "acronym issue."




 

Member Summary
Most Recent Posts
Time for you to start using one of those cards.

forbin4040 (Jul. 05, 2017 @ 11:03a) |

A+ excellent troll.

scrouds (Jul. 05, 2017 @ 12:10p) |

Wow that was one of the longest posts that ends in a new site (Created in April).
And parts are in Russian to boot!

forbin4040 (Jul. 05, 2017 @ 1:15p) |

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

rated:
Find proof of this in your policy
Damage to tires is specifically excluded under the policy, unless the tire damage co-exsists with a covered loss (ex. Motor vehicle collision damaging the left rear quarter panel and tire)
AAA didn't cover me on a blowout as well...but this is a CC company (Which one you did not say)

rated:
Which credit card did you use???

rated:
forbin4040 said:   Find proof of this in your policy
Damage to tires is specifically excluded under the policy, unless the tire damage co-exsists with a covered loss (ex. Motor vehicle collision damaging the left rear quarter panel and tire)
AAA didn't cover me on a blowout as well...but this is a CC company (Which one you did not say)

  "damage to tires unless the loss be coincident with a covered loss."

that's in there. second claims' adjuster added the "example."

there's no language like " to get coverage for a damaged tire, another part of rental vehicle must also suffer damage from collision/upset. 'another part of rental vehicle' must not be a tire."
 

rated:
Wow you made that post hard to read - IC, CC, RC, AF, MR...what a horrible alphabet soup.

Summary:  OP ran over a rock and had a flat tire.  He's out 95 bucks for miscellaneous charges.

Judgement:  Move on.  Life's to short to sweat the small stuff.

rated:
sloppy1 said:   Which credit card did you use???
  UnionPay Platinum (never using it for future rentals)

rated:
ripeculu said:   
sloppy1 said:   Which credit card did you use???
  UnionPay Platinum (never using it for future rentals)

  Can't help you there , Asian credit cards have different rules than US ones.

I'm sure Amex would've covered this. - Erp, nope, they wouldn't

rated:
ripeculu said:   
sloppy1 said:   Which credit card did you use???
  UnionPay Platinum (never using it for future rentals)

  Next time use an Amex credit card.

rated:
forbin4040 said:   
ripeculu said:   
sloppy1 said:   Which credit card did you use???
  UnionPay Platinum (never using it for future rentals)

  Can't help you there , Asian credit cards have different rules than US ones.

I'm sure Amex would've covered this.

  My UP is a "USA" version.  CC payments go to NYC.

IC (Chubb) is in NJ.

rated:
It might be a US version, but it originates from an Asian company, hence the coverage will be different.

Most Mastercards and Visas have similar coverage
Amex cards have extensive coverage.

But I don't know how much Unionpay (Which originates outside of the US) will want to cover.

rated:
BTW Amex would NOT have covered this

Items Not Covered
8. Theft of or Damage to tires (flats or blowouts), unless Damaged by fire, malicious mischief, vandalism,
or stolen, unless the loss is coincident with and from the same cause as other loss covered by the Plan;

As  a side note, Amex doesn't cover large SUV's, didn't notice this

http://milecards.com/15199/flat-tires-7-more-gotchas-car-rental-... 

Vehicles Not Covered This Plan does not cover rentals of:
1. cargo vans, custom vans, vans with a seating capacity over 8 passengers, cube van or box truck, or any truck that has a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 lbs or more;

rated:
forbin4040 said:   It might be a US version, but it originates from an Asian company, hence the coverage will be different.

Most Mastercards and Visas have similar coverage
Amex cards have extensive coverage.

But I don't know how much Unionpay (Which originates outside of the US) will want to cover.

  UP is peripheral, though.

The CDW's underwriter is Chubb.  It's the one claiming its CDW policy doesn't cover my losses.

I'm wondering whether anybody has had any luck getting a similar denial overturned after complaining to a state's insurance regulator. That's my next move.

rated:
forbin4040 said:   BTW Amex would NOT have covered this

Items Not Covered
8. Theft of or Damage to tires (flats or blowouts), unless Damaged by fire, malicious mischief, vandalism,
or stolen, unless the loss is coincident with and from the same cause as other loss covered by the Plan;

As  a side note, Amex doesn't cover large SUV's, didn't notice this

http://milecards.com/15199/flat-tires-7-more-gotchas-car-rental-... 

  that language is ambiguous, though.   I assume "the Plan" covers "collision/upset." what happens when a tire "blows" after colliding with an object?  is the "blowout" "coincident" with a "collision/upset"?

rated:
No, a blowout is common. And the language there specifically says that flats or blowouts are not covered.

You can 'try' to see if they will cover it, but the link shows that you are not the only one who is mad that flat tires are not covered.

rated:
forbin4040 said:   No, a blowout is common. And the language there specifically says that flats or blowouts are not covered.

You can 'try' to see if they will cover it, but the link shows that you are not the only one who is mad that flat tires are not covered.

  "unless Damaged by fire, malicious mischief, vandalism,
or stolen, unless the loss is coincident with and from the same cause as other loss covered by the Plan;"

they're "not covered" UNLESS they're covered.

fortunately, my policy doesn't mention "other loss."

looks as if I'll have an easier time arguing my case.

(glad I didn't use AMEX)

rated:
Not sure what you're arguing here, the policy seems pretty clear to me and road hazards damaging a tire are not covered. Be thankful you got a check for part of it. Also, thank you for posting because I wouldn't have known about this exclusion otherwise.

rated:
ripeculu said:   
forbin4040 said:   BTW Amex would NOT have covered this

Items Not Covered
8. Theft of or Damage to tires (flats or blowouts), unless Damaged by fire, malicious mischief, vandalism,
or stolen, unless the loss is coincident with and from the same cause as other loss covered by the Plan;

As  a side note, Amex doesn't cover large SUV's, didn't notice this

http://milecards.com/15199/flat-tires-7-more-gotchas-car-rental-...

  that language is ambiguous, though.   I assume "the Plan" covers "collision/upset." what happens when a tire "blows" after colliding with an object?  is the "blowout" "coincident" with a "collision/upset"?

  
It's only ambiguous because you are trying to read it in your favor. If you collide with something that damages the vehicle and tire, it's covered. If you hit or run over something that damages just the tire, not covered.

rated:
btw OP you are not the first person on FW to get this same situation
https://www.fatwallet.com/forums/finance/1481658

rated:
lol what is up with the acronyms?

rated:
doveroftke said:   
ripeculu said:   
forbin4040 said:   BTW Amex would NOT have covered this

Items Not Covered
8. Theft of or Damage to tires (flats or blowouts), unless Damaged by fire, malicious mischief, vandalism,
or stolen, unless the loss is coincident with and from the same cause as other loss covered by the Plan;

As  a side note, Amex doesn't cover large SUV's, didn't notice this

http://milecards.com/15199/flat-tires-7-more-gotchas-car-rental-...

  that language is ambiguous, though.   I assume "the Plan" covers "collision/upset." what happens when a tire "blows" after colliding with an object?  is the "blowout" "coincident" with a "collision/upset"?

  
It's only ambiguous because you are trying to read it in your favor. If you collide with something that damages the vehicle and tire, it's covered. If you hit or run over something that damages just the tire, not covered.

  perhaps. but there's a screw up.

here's the language:

"damage to tires unless the loss be coincident with a covered loss."

what should've been written:

"damage to tires unless the loss be coincident with a separate, covered loss."

That language would leave me no wiggle room.

(insurance company might want to find a competent lawyer to draft insurance policies).

There's obvious ambiguity, since insurance companies train adjusters to look for any reason to deny claims.  But my adjuster paid me for the damaged tire.  She denied Roadside/admin, without regard to whether they were valid in my case.  According to her, they're "never paid," irrespective of merit.



 

rated:
forbin4040 said:   btw OP you are not the first person on FW to get this same situation
https://www.fatwallet.com/forums/finance/1481658

  
thanks. if there's a "next time," I'll do what a poster in that thread did.  have a $5 tire installed.  (maybe I was a victim of a previous renter's "blowout").

rated:
doveroftke said:   Not sure what you're arguing here, the policy seems pretty clear to me and road hazards damaging a tire are not covered. Be thankful you got a check for part of it. Also, thank you for posting because I wouldn't have known about this exclusion otherwise.
  there's no language to this effect: 

EXCLUSIONS:

a road hazard that causes limited damage.  limited damage means a flat/blowout of one or more tires, but no other damage to rental.

rated:
ripeculu said:   
doveroftke said:   Not sure what you're arguing here, the policy seems pretty clear to me and road hazards damaging a tire are not covered. Be thankful you got a check for part of it. Also, thank you for posting because I wouldn't have known about this exclusion otherwise.
  there's no language to this effect: 

EXCLUSIONS:

a road hazard that causes limited damage.  limited damage means a flat/blowout of one or more tires, but no other damage to rental.

  
There doesn't need to be language to that effect because "damage to tires" is excluded. There are exceptions to that exclusion, but none of them would apply to the situation you experienced.

ripeculu said:   here's the language:

"damage to tires unless the loss be coincident with a covered loss."

what should've been written:

"damage to tires unless the loss be coincident with a separate, covered loss."

That language would leave me no wiggle room.

 

    
There is no effective difference between these two sentences, the first is perfectly clear.

rated:
doveroftke said:   
ripeculu said:   
doveroftke said:   Not sure what you're arguing here, the policy seems pretty clear to me and road hazards damaging a tire are not covered. Be thankful you got a check for part of it. Also, thank you for posting because I wouldn't have known about this exclusion otherwise.
  there's no language to this effect: 

EXCLUSIONS:

a road hazard that causes limited damage.  limited damage means a flat/blowout of one or more tires, but no other damage to rental.

  
There doesn't need to be language to that effect because "damage to tires" is excluded. There are exceptions to that exclusion, but none of them would apply to the situation you experienced.

ripeculu said:   here's the language:

"damage to tires unless the loss be coincident with a covered loss."

what should've been written:

"damage to tires unless the loss be coincident with a separate, covered loss."

That language would leave me no wiggle room.

 

    
There is no effective difference between these two sentences, the first is perfectly clear.

  

According to CDW policy, rental striking an object = collision.  That's why there needs to be a road-hazard disclaimer.

The 1st sentence allows me to argue that a "collision/upset" was coincident with tire damage (According to CDW policy, rental striking an object = collision.  Collision and tire damage occurring together = coincident).  But the 2nd sentence wouldn't allow me to make such a claim, since at least one other part of rental would require damage).

"Collision damage means the direct and accidental damage to a Rented Automobile caused by upset or collision with another object. Collision Damage does not include loss caused by missiles, falling objects, fire, theft or larceny, explosion, earthquake, windstorm, hail, water, flood, malicious mischief or vandalism, riot or civil commotion."

A "rock" is not an "object"?  If not, what is a rock? a subject?

rated:
Next time you should lose control after hitting the object that blew the tire out. It would be covered if you wrecked the car

rated:
Op got a check for $83 damage to tire. End of story. Nowhere does OP quotes of terms and conditions state roadside assistance is covered.

rated:
ripeculu said:   
According to CDW policy, rental striking an object = collision.  That's why there needs to be a road-hazard disclaimer.
 

  
There is, it's the exclusion for tire damage not coincident with a covered loss. It doesn't matter if they call it "road-hazard" or not, the effect of the exclusion is very clear. You are the only person in this thread not getting it.

rated:
Even I got lost in OP's complaint.

He wants them to reimburse the labor/fees to change the tire. They paid for the tire. That's about it.
They wanted OP to change the tire with the spare (There was a spare I assume), and OP wanted someone else to do it.

rated:
seawolf21 said:   Op got a check for $83 damage to tire. End of story. Nowhere does OP quotes of terms and conditions state roadside assistance is covered.
  "As an eligible Insured* you are eligible to receive reimbursement for repair or replacement of a Rented Automobile***, as a result of Collision Damage** to a Rented Automobile." 

there was a collision or upset, causing damage.

roadside assistance changed tire.

tire change = (temporary) repair of collision/upset damage.

rated:
forbin4040 said:   Even I got lost in OP's complaint.

He wants them to reimburse the labor/fees to change the tire. They paid for the tire. That's about it.
They wanted OP to change the tire with the spare (There was a spare I assume), and OP wanted someone else to do it.

  my rental's lug-nut wrench did NOT fit my damage tire's lug nuts.  i spent 10 mins attempting to change tire before I called roadside ass't.

rated:
doveroftke said:   
ripeculu said:   
According to CDW policy, rental striking an object = collision.  That's why there needs to be a road-hazard disclaimer.

  
There is, it's the exclusion for tire damage not coincident with a covered loss. It doesn't matter if they call it "road-hazard" or not, the effect of the exclusion is very clear. You are the only person in this thread not getting it.

  we've already gone over this.

according to policy, collision/upset occurs when rental strikes an object.

policy does NOT say that tires are NOT part of rental.  therefore, tires ARE part of rental.

rock = object

one of rental's tires struck an object, causing damage to said tire.  

the striking constituted a collision/upset, since tire stopped functioning normally.

therefore, tire is covered, since tire failed simultaneously with a collision/upset (collision/upset = covered loss).

if tire had either mysteriously failed or had failed because of an excluded reason (failure due to a missile strike, for example), then policy WOULD exclude tire's damage.

don't shoot the messenger.  i'm simply applying facts to policy language.

you're claiming what happened was a "road hazard" incident. but "road hazard" language does NOT even appear in policy.  at least I'm citing DIRECT wording from the CDW.

rated:
ripeculu said:   my rental's lug-nut wrench did NOT fit my damage tire's lug nuts.  i spent 10 mins attempting to change tire before I called roadside ass't.And what did the rental car company say when you called them to bring out the correct lug wrench?
  

rated:
NoMoneyInMyWallet said:   
ripeculu said:   my rental's lug-nut wrench did NOT fit my damage tire's lug nuts.  i spent 10 mins attempting to change tire before I called roadside ass't.
And what did the rental car company say when you called them to bring out the correct lug wrench?
  

  They transferred me to their Emergency Roadside Assistance Command Center.  a lug-nut wrench was then hand delivered to me approx. 7 mins. later by special envoy. 

Or I may have waited about 10 mins on hold for a CSR to answer my call. then CSR may have told me all she could authorize was (1) roadside ass't for a tire change or (2) a tow to a nearby rental location for a vehicle swap..  additionally, she may have told me that I could NOT drive on a spare to a nearby tire shop for new-tire installation.  and, after contacting two, nearby renal locations (while keeping me on hold for 10 mins.), she may have said that one rental location was NOT answering its phone, and another rental location was out of vehicles.

Then she may have told me to drive on a spare to another rental location (in an airport), 60+ miles away.  (luckily I was heading that way anyway).  after giving me wrong addresses for the rental location about 5 times, she may have given me yet another wrong address.  I may have subsequently found a correct address through my GPS.

(On a positive note, at least roadside ass't showed up <5 mins. after my request for it was processed).

Thereafter, I may have reached the airport location, where I may have encountered humanity's dumbest person since creation of humankind: a female rental agent.

She may have told me "I didn't need a vehicle swap," since it was perfectly fine to drive home (500+ miles away) on a spare tire.  (my rental's manual warned against using the spare for more than 50 miles, at low speed.  but apparently that warning didn't apply to my case.  she knew better than the vehicle's manufacturer).  

when I told her I would NOT drive 500+ miles on a spare, she then said that I was INELIGIBLE for a vehicle swap.  

REASON (you'll love this): My original rental contract did NOT show the airport location as my final drop-off location  (seriously, I'm NOT trolling you, although I thought she was trolling me).

When I told her "drop-off location" was irrelevant in this case, she just kept repeating that she couldn't swap vehicles, since the drop-off locations didn't match.

I said, "whatever. do a one-way rental on my CC. and I'll get this problem fixed by corporate later."  

Afterwards, I handed her my UnionPay CC.  then the moron said she "couldn't accept it, since it was a pre-paid card."  I said, "it has an unsecured credit limit."  But she kept insisting that it was a pre-paid card, since "pay" was a word on my card.  (again, I'm NOT trolling you).

I said, "whatever. put it on this Visa, assuming that qualifies as a CC."  Luckily, she said "it did."

Afterwards, she told me ALL one-way rentals came with MANDATORY collision coverage."

I said, "yea, no thanks."

Then she said, "if you decline it, you'll need to do a two-way rental, bringing it back after you've reached your final destination."

I said, "whatever. give me a one-way rental."

Then the idiot had me sign a paper stating that I was agreeing to OPTIONAL collision coverage.

Total bill was $200+ (for a one-way, mid-sized vehicle)

On all paperwork, I put "HAD A BLOWOUT DUE TO COLLISION. AGENT REFUSED TO DO A VEHICLE SWAP.  FORCED TO DO A ONE-WAY RENTAL WITH MANDATORY COLLISION INSURANCE OR BE STRANDED 500+ MILES FROM HOME." Then I had her give me copies of everything.

When I got home, I complained to corporate.

Fortunately, all one-way, rental fees were ultimately reversed.

Good times.







 

rated:
It's nice you got the one way rental fees reversed, but you should have complained to them about the cost for the roadside assistance as well since they stocked the car with the wrong wrench.

Your beef is with the rental company, not your credit card. You're lucky your credit card paid you anything for the tire. They shouldn't have.

rated:
meade18 said:   It's nice you got the one way rental fees reversed, but you should have complained to them about the cost for the roadside assistance as well since they stocked the car with the wrong wrench.

Your beef is with the rental company, not your credit card. You're lucky your credit card paid you anything for the tire. They shouldn't have.

  I didn't want to lodge another complaint, given that I had already complained about the retarded rental agent.  

too many complaints = obnoxious customer = rental ban

there's no "luck" involved. two claims adjusters approved my payment for the tire.  are they retarded? unlikely.  main problem: policy language is ambiguous, even if you think otherwise.  Chubb is claiming "error" now because partial claim payment = an admission of collision damage.  an admission of collision damage means roadside ass't was covered, since it was a "repair" of collision damage.

as I stated earlier, why didn't my policy simply EXCLUDE roadside ass't?  

perhaps an exclusion violates insurance codes in certain states?

we'll see what my dept. of insurance says.

if it rules against me, I'll still win in small claims. chubb is unlikely to show up for <$100.  so I predict an easy win by default.

 

rated:
What I find backward is that they paid him for the tire but not the roadside assistance. That is the reverse of the way it works in every case I know of, including three personally. Pretty much all rental companies include roadside assistance of some sort - plus any personal coverage you have through AAA or similar. My insurance company road service covers me as well. However I have had flats in two countries, a car broken into (glass damage), and two car breakdowns and NEVER has the CDW covered anything -- not a dime. Roadside service in Ireland and Austria -- free. I actually used the one in Ireland for a flat tire, the spare had a slow leak and was flat. Tire service came out and filled the spare. I paid for a new tire. This was WITH very expensive CDW coverages required for most rentals in Ireland because so many card issuers refuse and I fully understand why. A different trip I had a window smashed and personal property taken. I thought, well at least there is CDW... yeah, I got a bill instead. They took an immediate 300 Euros at turn-in and sent me an 88 Euro cheque in the US, naturally drawn off an IE bank...

Two breakdowns, both cases the rental agency sent a tow-truck -- one case they towed a replacement (van) out to us on the side of the road and we exchanged a dead van for a not-dead one. The other case they pulled an identical car (a nice Cadillac I had got a very lucky upgrade to) and had it ready for me at the airport. They offered to deliver it to the hotel, but I took the hotel shuttle back to the airport instead.

The one I got lucky on was a dealer rental truck (free loaner) where I had a tire go out on a long overpass/ramp with no safe stopping place for half a mile. The tire was shredded, of course. Brought the vehicle back on a donut and expected a bill.. they just waved it off "we will take care of it." F150 tires are not cheap, either.

I tend to get the roadside riders on insurance policies -- both motorcycle and car. Generally they cover you regardless of vehicle.
---

I will probably be using my Chase Sapphire going forward, I used to use Amex and had one card loaded with AMEX Premium Coverage (automatic for car rentals) and one without. Since Sapphire's "premium" is free I don't need to separate them. However almost all the plans have hidden limits, sometimes it is vehicle value and sometimes it is class.

Found a fairly detailed analysis (thank you Mr Google) that says Citi is slightly better than Chase for coverage, but CSP also has Primary coverage. It also suggests that Citi DOES always cover damage to tires and rims though.

rated:
Time for you to start using one of those cards.

rated:
A+ excellent troll.

rated:
Wow that was one of the longest posts that ends in a new site (Created in April).
And parts are in Russian to boot!

  • Quick Reply:  Have something quick to contribute? Just reply below and you're done! hide Quick Reply
     
    Click here for full-featured reply.


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