Waivers declining additional insurance coverage may be valid.
This was an application for summary judgement by the Plaintiff rental car company. The Defendant refused to compensate the Plaintiff after he had damaged a rental car belonging to it. The Court held that the waiver declining additional insurance coverage signed by the Defendant was valid. Damages were awarded to the Plaintiff.
Enterprise Rent-A-Car Canada Ltd. v. Penton, [2009] N.J. No. 73, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court - Trial Division, April 2, 2009, R.A. Fowler J.
The Defendant rented a vehicle from the Plaintiff rental car company. When he picked the vehicle up he signed a rental agreement. The Plaintiff signed the areas which indicated that he wished to decline additional insurance coverage and that he had read the entire agreement. He subsequently got into an accident and demolished the car.
The Defendant refused to pay for the damage to the vehicle and asserted that he did not understand the waiver because the rental agent hurried him through the process and did not give him an adequate explanation.
The Plaintiff commenced an action against the Defendant to recover the cost of the vehicle and then brought an application to have the matter proceed by way of summary trial. The Defendant argued that because there was conflicting evidence about the circumstances under which the agreement was signed, the matter could not be decided by way of summary trial. The Court held that the matter could proceed by summary trial even though it would be necessary to assess the credibility of the Defendant and the rental agent to determine what the parties had understood the bargain to be at the time the contract was signed.
The Court awarded the Plaintiff the value of the damaged vehicle as well as costs. The rental agreement was standard and enforceable. The Defendant’s assertions about what occurred lacked credibility. The fact he had rented vehicles from the Plaintiff on two prior occasions and opted for the additional insurance at a cost of more than $160 each time was taken into account. The Court concluded that he would not have paid this additional amount in the past if he did not understand what it was for. The rental agent’s statements that it was her usual practice to go over the agreement with customers and that there were incentives from the company for employees who sold a lot of insurance coverage were accepted.
This case was originally summarized by Kim Yee and originally edited by David Pilley.
