This review, while extremely long, might be of general interest to anyone renting a car, as it provides information about the laws governing insurance requirements.
I retrieved a rental car from this location on September 19, 2014. While reviewing my options for purchasing insurance for my rental, I was given misleading information by the associate that I dealt with (whose name was, according to Enterprise's records, Steven).
I was quite certain about my situation with respect to damage to the rental vehicle (which is what a collision damage waiver concerns). However, the associate told me that liability insurance was a different matter, and that, if I were stopped by law enforcement, I might be required to prove that I had the mandatory minimum insurance required by the state. I told the associate that I'd never heard of this throughout years of renting cars, and that I'd look into it. He let me be on my way.
A phone call to the Office of the Secretary of State revealed that the information about liability insurance that I was given by the Enterprise associate does not pertain to renting a vehicle.
In the state of Illinois, the law requires rental companies to have liability insurance on all rental vehicles (in the Illinois Compiled Statutes, it's 625 ILCS 5/Ch. 9; see http://ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=062500050HCh.+9&ActID=1815&ChapterID=49&SeqStart=106900000&SeqEnd=108000000). All rental vehicles must be "insured to a minimum amount of $50,000 because of bodily injury to, or death of any one person or damage to property and $100,000 because of bodily injury to or death of 2 or more persons in any one motor vehicle accident." These amounts exceed the legal minimums (which the Office of the Secretary of State notes for easy reference here: http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/departments/vehicles/mandatory_insurance.html). Also, the law states that a driver can give evidence of the minimum mandatory insurance by providing "a current rental agreement" (625 ILCS 5/7-602, http://ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=062500050HCh.+7+Art.+VI&ActID=1815&ChapterID=49&SeqStart=102400000&SeqEnd=103600000).
The law specifies that "the owner of any motor vehicle to engage in the business... of renting out such motor vehicle" (625 ILCS 5/9-101) must prove to the state that is has insurance against "damage to property", "death", or "injury" "resulting from the operation of the motor vehicle" by "any person operating the motor vehicle with the customer's and the owner's express or implied consent" (625 ILCS 5/9-103 and 9-105). I pull these quotes just to make completely clear that the insurance that the car rental company is required to have doesn't somehow apply only to the rental car but leave the customer liable for the consequences of their actions, as this was suggested to me by another Enterprise associate at a different date and location. The only financial liability that is necessarily and immediately borne by the customer is damage to the rental vehicle itself and possible consequences thereof, such as the rental company losing use of the vehicle (again, this is what is at issue when a customer accepts or declines a collision damage waiver; see "Renter's Financial Responsibility and Protection Act", 625 ILCS 27, http://ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1820&ChapterID=49).
So, it is simply false to claim that a customer might violate the minimum insurance law if he or she didn't purchase liability insurance from Enterprise (or else happen to have such insurance from another source). This falsehood was, at a minimum, expressly and deliberately implied by the associate with whom I dealt, if perhaps not stated outright (my recollection of what was said isn't precise enough to make the latter assertion). The same thing happened again two months later (on November 14, 2014) at another local Enterprise location (1810 Maple Avenue, Evanston, Illinois, where I was helped by an associate named Charles).
I cannot know whether the perpetuation of this falsehood was deliberate deceit or just an error, but I find either to be completely unacceptable.
Furthermore, I am concerned that I encountered the very same presentation of this falsehood, referencing the same possibility of being stopped by law enforcement, on two different occasions at different Chicago-area Enterprise locations.
Additionally, I am specifically concerned that I was asked to consider the possibility that I might be stopped by law enforcement. I'm black, male, and thirty-something (and I might seem to be a few years younger than my age). I worry that the hypothetical traffic stop was suggested on the assumption that a person of my demographic profile is especially likely to have encounters with law enforcement; specifically, I worry that the suggestion was made to play on fears of being targeted by law enforcement that might be harbored by a person of my demographic profile. read more