Europcar "premium" protection query

jbrassy

eDicky said:

SimplyBetter said:

snowmen said:

SimplyBetter said:

eDicky said:

SimplyBetter said:

eDicky said:

Hire firms offer (push) their own extra insurance at the desk when collecting the car, or sometimes when you book direct. It's the most expensive way.

Third-party car hire brokers such as easyJet often sell an extra insurance to cover CDW excess, which is probably what you've purchased. It's cheaper than that of the hire firm, but still pricy compared to a standalone policy purchased separately - see the MSE advice article.

To clarify, the hire firms do not offer insurance, but a waiver of any charges. Brokers sell insurance to pay off those potential charges. Two entirely different offers.

The only basic difference being the need for deposit or card pre-authorisation to cover the CDW excess if not bought from the hire firm, in what way are they  'entirely different offers'..?

I thought that I just explained that.

Car Hire offer is a WAIVER. Broker's offer is an insurance policy.
Car gets a ding? With a waiver, it doesn't matter. Hand it back and walk away.
With an insurance policy, you leave a deposit and pay for any damage out of your own pocket. Then gather evidence for any claim, compile that and send that off, in expectation of reimbursement. Two entirely different offers.

A good point.
I would want the former as there are just too many ways the latter could go wrong and then not pay out.
Also I would imagine a hire company would be more inclined to find damage when an insurance policy from elsewhere has been purchased.

Though it's important to note what the waiver does not cover. Tyres and windscreen etc For this reason, personally I use an excess policy as it covers those items and more.

Often it's the reverse situation, with the separate excess policy not giving complete cover.

Certainly hirers are often told at the desk that for complete cover their independent policy is not sufficient.

From which provider do you purchase with such confidence..?

This is not true. Oftentimes the reduced excess that car hire companies offer do not cover tyres, windscreen, etc. The cover offered by third party car hire excess insurance does usually cover this stuff and offers much higher protection. 

The best place to look for car hire excess insurance is Money Maxim which is basically a price comparison site for these policies. 

SimplyBetter

eDicky said:

SimplyBetter said:

eDicky said:

SimplyBetter said:

eDicky said:

Hire firms offer (push) their own extra insurance at the desk when collecting the car, or sometimes when you book direct. It's the most expensive way.

Third-party car hire brokers such as easyJet often sell an extra insurance to cover CDW excess, which is probably what you've purchased. It's cheaper than that of the hire firm, but still pricy compared to a standalone policy purchased separately - see the MSE advice article.

To clarify, the hire firms do not offer insurance, but a waiver of any charges. Brokers sell insurance to pay off those potential charges. Two entirely different offers.

The only basic difference being the need for deposit or card pre-authorisation to cover the CDW excess if not bought from the hire firm, in what way are they  'entirely different offers'..?

I thought that I just explained that.

Car Hire offer is a WAIVER. Broker's offer is an insurance policy.
Car gets a ding? With a waiver, it doesn't matter. Hand it back and walk away.
With an insurance policy, you leave a deposit and pay for any damage out of your own pocket. Then gather evidence for any claim, compile that and send that off, in expectation of reimbursement. Two entirely different offers.

And now you explain the differences well.

However the objective of protecting the hirer more completely from the cost of any damage to the vehicle during the rental is always the same, whether you purchase a product from the hire firm, a broker site or a separate insurance provider.

Unnecessary word salad and erroneous anyway. Car hire broker and insurance broker sell insurance. Car hire firm supplies a waiver which doesn't usually cover everything. So 'more completely' is meaningless.

eDicky said:

Hire firms offer (push) their own extra insurance at the desk when collecting the car, or sometimes when you book direct. It's the most expensive way.

Third-party car hire brokers such as easyJet often sell an extra insurance to cover CDW excess, which is probably what you've purchased. It's cheaper than that of the hire firm, but still pricy compared to a standalone policy purchased separately - see the MSE advice article.

They don't sell 'extra insurance'. The offer an excess waiver. Muddying the waters doesn't help anyone trying to understand the 'ins and outs'.They are quite different products, requiring quite different procedures, even though the end result is to further protect the consumer.

SimplyBetter

eDicky said:

SimplyBetter said:

snowmen said:

SimplyBetter said:

eDicky said:

SimplyBetter said:

eDicky said:

Hire firms offer (push) their own extra insurance at the desk when collecting the car, or sometimes when you book direct. It's the most expensive way.

Third-party car hire brokers such as easyJet often sell an extra insurance to cover CDW excess, which is probably what you've purchased. It's cheaper than that of the hire firm, but still pricy compared to a standalone policy purchased separately - see the MSE advice article.

To clarify, the hire firms do not offer insurance, but a waiver of any charges. Brokers sell insurance to pay off those potential charges. Two entirely different offers.

The only basic difference being the need for deposit or card pre-authorisation to cover the CDW excess if not bought from the hire firm, in what way are they  'entirely different offers'..?

I thought that I just explained that.

Car Hire offer is a WAIVER. Broker's offer is an insurance policy.
Car gets a ding? With a waiver, it doesn't matter. Hand it back and walk away.
With an insurance policy, you leave a deposit and pay for any damage out of your own pocket. Then gather evidence for any claim, compile that and send that off, in expectation of reimbursement. Two entirely different offers.

A good point.
I would want the former as there are just too many ways the latter could go wrong and then not pay out.
Also I would imagine a hire company would be more inclined to find damage when an insurance policy from elsewhere has been purchased.

Though it's important to note what the waiver does not cover. Tyres and windscreen etc For this reason, personally I use an excess policy as it covers those items and more.

Often it's the reverse situation, with the separate excess policy not giving complete cover.

Certainly hirers are often told at the desk that for complete cover their independent policy is not sufficient.

From which provider do you purchase with such confidence..?

No, it's not often the reverse situation. Can you give me an example of a standalone policy that doesn't give more cover than an excess waiver?
I'm not sure why you are choosing to argue over every point. Especially when you are getting it wrong every time.

Insurance policy almost always, if not always, covers Tyres and windscreens where a waiver might not. It can also cover misfuelling, lost keys and breakdown cover which may be offered as another option by the hire firm. In almost any case of which I can think, insurance cover is superior.
Show me otherwise, other than hearsay but with no written evidence. Your statement of "often" is unwarranted and untrue.