Nine Days in Phoenix: The Rental Minivan
The Castillos fly to Phoenix and rent a minivan for nine days at $85 a day. The counter agent offers a loss damage waiver at $29 a day and supplemental liability insurance at $14 a day. Their PAP at home carries 100/300/50 liability, a $500 collision deductible, a $250 other-than-collision deductible, no rental reimbursement endorsement, and lists a 2018 Camry, which is in the body shop that same week for $3,000 of collision repairs, and a 2015 Sienna. On day 3, the van is sideswiped in a hotel lot, $4,600 in damage; the rental company also bills $340 for loss of use, four days at $85, and a $150 administrative fee. On day 6, an uninsured driver rear-ends them and their 12-year-old daughter suffers a $9,000 injury. On days 7 and 8, their 19-year-old son uses the van to make deliveries for a local florist, for which he is paid $120.
1. Does the Castillos' PAP cover the day-3 damage, and was the $29-a-day loss damage waiver the better buy?
Read the worked answer
Part D covers damage to a non-owned auto, which includes a rented private passenger van that is not used for business, so the $4,600 repair is covered subject to their $500 collision deductible. The rental company's loss-of-use charge is treated as part of the loss and is generally payable because it represents the rental income lost while the van is out of service; the $150 administrative fee is not a loss to the vehicle and is typically excluded, so challenge it. Now price the waiver: nine days at $29 is $261, which is less than the $500 deductible plus the certainty of an at-fault claim on their record and the risk of the administrative fee. The LDW was the cheaper option. If they had bought it, the rental company waives the damage entirely and no PAP claim is needed, which also protects their renewal.
2. The daughter is injured by an uninsured driver while riding in the rental. Which coverage responds, and would the answer change if the at-fault driver had been insured?
Read the worked answer
The Castillos' own UM coverage responds. Part C insures the named insured and family members for bodily injury caused by an uninsured motor vehicle while occupying any auto, and a short-term rental is not a vehicle furnished for regular use, so no exclusion applies. The daughter is a family member and therefore an insured in her own right, not merely a passenger. The rental company's supplemental liability product covers the renter's liability to others; it is not UM, and the rental company is generally not obliged to furnish UM in that state. Medical payments coverage under their PAP can also pay her treatment as an insured occupant, with the customary pro rata sharing against any other applicable auto medical coverage. Had the at-fault driver been insured with adequate limits, her claim would run against that driver directly, and UM would not be triggered.
3. What exposure does the son's florist delivery create under the PAP and under the rental agreement?
Read the worked answer
Two separate exposures, and both are serious. Part A excludes liability for any vehicle used to carry persons or property for a fee, with only share-the-expense car pools carved out, so any accident during the florist runs leaves the Castillos uninsured for third-party injury and property damage. Part D is drafted more narrowly, excluding only use as a public or livery conveyance, so physical damage to the van might still be covered, but do not build a defense on that distinction without reading the endorsement in force. The rental agreement is a contract issue running parallel to the PAP: nearly every rental contract prohibits commercial use, so the Castillos would also owe the rental company for breach and could lose the benefit of any waiver. If the son has his own policy or is a listed driver elsewhere, that policy may respond, but only after the same exclusion analysis applies.