|
|
此文章由 crazycrab 原创或转贴，不代表本站立场和观点，版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 crazycrab 所有！转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明，并保持内容完整
本帖最后由 crazycrab 于 2015-11-4 22:14 编辑
che999 发表于 2015-11-4 21:55 
如果是冰雹 或者被人损害 车顶 找不到人的那种 也不赔吗
google了一下，还真有这么多陷阱。
I purchased liability reduction from the car hire agency so why aren't I covered?
Understanding your liabilities when purchasing extra cover for a rental vehicle can be a little confusing, especially when you're keen to get on the road and start holidaying. However it's important to work out when you're covered and what your level of liability is before you agree to the contract.
Many people may think they're purchasing an insurance product when they're just getting an excess reduction product. Excess reduction products often have exclusions, which could mean you aren't covered for roof and underbody damage, single-vehicle accidents, windscreen damage, careless driving, or for vandalism and hailstorms. For example, Hertz's terms and conditions stipulate that even if you have the maximum rental protection option, you won't be covered if you hit an animal on the road if you're driving between sunrise and sunset.
You may find it's not worth taking out the company's excess reduction cover and look for additional insurance through another provider instead. Some travel insurance also provides cover. You can find out more about insuring your rental car in our buying guide.
If you do choose the rental agency's liability reduction, the business needs to be clear about what is and isn't included. It can't mislead you into thinking that extra cover products provide greater protection from liability than is actually the case and it shouldn't hide important details in the fine print. For example, a product called 'Total Cover' that doesn't provide cover for everything could well be considered misleading.
One helpful precedent occurred when a car hire company tried to hold a customer liable for an accident despite having paid $21 a day for seemingly comprehensive extra cover. The customer inadvertently went through a red light and caused damaged to the hire car as well as $50,000 worth of damage to a Mercedes. The hire car company's fine print read that the company wouldn't grant cover if a customer failed to comply with local traffic rules or drove without due care or attention. However, the court ruled that the car hire company pay for the damages and the customer's legal costs, because offering an almost worthless damage waiver as "comprehensive" was unconscionable as well as false and misleading. However not all consumers may be so lucky and may wind up having to pay for the damage.
不过也提到曾经有人赢官司，关键是误导消费者。基本上就是useless protection。比如如果一个叫做 “total cover" 的产品却不cover everything。就可以被认为是误导消费者。 |
评分
-
查看全部评分
|
也谈telopea (2010-12-10) aicjt 
楼主:ahkim
发表于 2015-11-4 20:42
