This is dealing with Commercial policy but I wouldn't think it would make a difference. Would anyone know if a UM claim should pick up a rental car costs, with no rental car cov'g on the policy?
The current adj says a big fat no, so does a couple adj's I called to ask the generic question (a cpl standard carriers we have that are not involved in this claim), but can't not tell me why (except that rental cov'g is not on their policy). Googled it and several atty's answering claim questions on their websites says they should, and I say they should, but when numerous adj are disagreeing, I wouldn't bet on it.
Reason why they say no-no rental cov'g on policy and one said just cause, lol.
Reason why I think yes-
The UM part of this particular policy affords cov'g, atleast imo- "We will pay damages which an "insured" is legally entitled to recover from the owner of an "uninsured motor vehicle" because of BI or PD caused by an accident", and nothing below it excludes it/takes it away.
Liability claims include rental costs, when hit by an at fault driver with ins, whether rental cov'g is on the policy or not. It's supposed to be paid basically the same as a liability claim, except your own carrier is paying, atleast how I've been taught.
Take the above further, and say I was hit by an insured driver who was at fault, and I had liability only, they'd pay PD under his liability part on my car even though I didn't have collision on my policy. So the "Rental isn't on policy isn't valid" as collision isn't on their either and it gets paid all day long, on BOTH UM and liability claims.
A court would award you rental car costs in a lawsuit (so you are, legally entitled to).
Adjusters, or anyone, tell me why I'm wrong? Or am I right?
This is a Tx claim, and we have both BI and PD UM here, this happens to be CSL policy (1 mill) as it's commercial.
I'm open to get educated.
The current adj says a big fat no, so does a couple adj's I called to ask the generic question (a cpl standard carriers we have that are not involved in this claim), but can't not tell me why (except that rental cov'g is not on their policy). Googled it and several atty's answering claim questions on their websites says they should, and I say they should, but when numerous adj are disagreeing, I wouldn't bet on it.
Reason why they say no-no rental cov'g on policy and one said just cause, lol.
Reason why I think yes-
The UM part of this particular policy affords cov'g, atleast imo- "We will pay damages which an "insured" is legally entitled to recover from the owner of an "uninsured motor vehicle" because of BI or PD caused by an accident", and nothing below it excludes it/takes it away.
Liability claims include rental costs, when hit by an at fault driver with ins, whether rental cov'g is on the policy or not. It's supposed to be paid basically the same as a liability claim, except your own carrier is paying, atleast how I've been taught.
Take the above further, and say I was hit by an insured driver who was at fault, and I had liability only, they'd pay PD under his liability part on my car even though I didn't have collision on my policy. So the "Rental isn't on policy isn't valid" as collision isn't on their either and it gets paid all day long, on BOTH UM and liability claims.
A court would award you rental car costs in a lawsuit (so you are, legally entitled to).
Adjusters, or anyone, tell me why I'm wrong? Or am I right?
This is a Tx claim, and we have both BI and PD UM here, this happens to be CSL policy (1 mill) as it's commercial.
I'm open to get educated.
