CDW Excess for third party

Joe_Horner

arcon5 wrote: »

If not incompetent, then i'd say using false information as such to make financial gains is nothing less than Fraud by Misrepresentation.
.

So would I, but if the answer as soon as its challenged (as it was for the OP) is "Oh, really sorry, sir, our mistake / misunderstanding, of course it's covered" then how's it ever going to be caught?

You either accept the reduced payout and go away never realising anything was wrong, or you challenge it and get the full payment due. Either way, no comeback.

rockettheatre

The "error" was on the part of the hire company - Enterprise actually.

They said that some of the excess payment was for the third party claim. Turns out it wasn't.

My gripe was also with the fact that I thought that it would therefore be cheaper to pay the third party myself and started to set things in motion. Obviously it's good to find out that I am covered by the insurance after all, but the company should know something as basic as this. Mistake or fraud? Not sure. But it's clearly not good enough.

Aretnap

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

Joe_Horner

Aretnap wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

I'll see your Hanlon and raise you one Heinlein

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Hanlon_s_razor.html



Bear in mind, these are financial institutions we're taking about so incompetence couldn't possibly at the root of it - just ask the City

InsideInsurance

rockettheatre wrote: »

The "error" was on the part of the hire company - Enterprise actually.

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Bear in mind, these are financial institutions we're taking about so incompetence couldn't possibly at the root of it - just ask the City

When did Enterprise become a financial institution or become based in the City?

Joe_Horner

They're not and they're not.

If you notice (the bit in quotes in my post is the clue) I was replying to Arenap raising Hanlon's razor (regarding incompetence v malice) in response to what I'd posted before the OP clarified. So it was nothing to do with the OPs post that you've quoted with it.

Thats the problem with internet threads, they tend not to stay strictly linear

zagfles

rockettheatre wrote: »

The "error" was on the part of the hire company - Enterprise actually.

They said that some of the excess payment was for the third party claim. Turns out it wasn't.

My gripe was also with the fact that I thought that it would therefore be cheaper to pay the third party myself and started to set things in motion. Obviously it's good to find out that I am covered by the insurance after all, but the company should know something as basic as this. Mistake or fraud? Not sure. But it's clearly not good enough.

They should have known better. Third party insurance is mandatory, they shouldn't have hired you the car without it. I don't believe there's an excess allowed.