On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 21:11:20 -0800, Scott en Aztl‡n
No, its not.
butthole of the day 3536jaybird You admitted right there you don't enforce the LIMIT, you enforce an arbitrary number ABOVE the limit. ("far enough...
Not at all. What I was out, on those occasions, was a spare car sitting at my house.
butthole of the day 3538gpsman The problem comes up in that there's officers who aren't that honest, and will write someone...
I wouldn't expect an adjuster to argue that, but it was in fact true. I was asked if I needed a rental on those occasions and declined to take one. They did not rip me off.
At the time of one of those accidents, I was rather busy, worked a lot and hard, and played hard too, and frankly didn't see any net benefit in taking an hour or so to get a rental car and later return it. I agree it was my right to have one if I wanted one. Just as its my right if I receive a solicitation from a time share seller to get a free meal and be entered in a drawing for a free home theater system, whether or not I have any interest in purchasing a time share. But, as I said, I was very busy at the time, the loss of a car was zero inconvenience, and getting a rental was not worth the time to me to get one. Besides, it was unnecessary.
As I posted earlier, State laws vary on this issue, but any that include a scheme requiring payment rather than arrangements for a car overstep the general principle that to be considered a loss, an expense must be incurred.
