Hertz demands additional payment from me for damage to the car due to someone else's fault

[Tony_weho]

California

I received a letter that I owe $1000 for damage to the car (scratches on the mirror) and if I don't pay, they will involve debt collectors. Moreover, before this, Hertz charged $2,500 from me and did not answer for what...
And what could be the consequences if I refuse payment? Will my credit score be affected? I tried to dispute that transaction for 2500, but the bank refused to refund the funds, since I myself provided the authorization
Hertz says that I am responsible regardless of fault, although the person responsible for the scratch does not deny his guilt, providing his contact information.

 

[Taxing Matters]

In general, you assume all liability for damage done to the rental while in your possession regardless of fault. In order to avoid that problem, you generally need to either get liability and damage insurance from Hertz (which isn't cheap, but handy if the car is damaged while you have it), have a rental car damage insurance benefit on your credit card agreement, or have the optional rental car coverage on your own vehicle insurance. Read carefully the contract you received from the company when you rented the car to see exactly what your payment responsibility is. If you don't have that anymore, I suggest you ask Hertz for a copy of it. In the meantime you may read the basic Hertz rental terms and conditions online. If you didn't get the optional insurance coverage from Hertz and didn't have coverage for rentals on your own policy or with the credit card you used for the rental, you may be left with paying the fee Hertz is damanding for the damage and then suing the at fault driver yourself for reimbursement of what you had to pay out.

 

[STEPHAN]

Did you pay with a credit card that includes insurance?

 

[davew9128]

have the optional rental car coverage on your own vehicle insurance.

In California, if the OP has comprehensive or collision coverage on a regular vehicle, the coverage carries over onto a rental.

 

[Taxing Matters]

In California, if the OP has comprehensive or collision coverage on a regular vehicle, the coverage carries over onto a rental.

That is indeed something that varies from state to state and sometimes from one insurer to another. When buying insurance I tell people not to assume what the policy covers or to go just by the what insurance salesperson tells them. They need to read the actual insurance contract (boring as that may be) and understand it. Otherwise, they sometimes end with a nasty surprise when the insurance company tells them they don't have the coverage they thought they did. And it's not just auto insurance. People buying any sort of insurance need to read the policy and understand what it provides. Just as one example, I had many years ago (before the ACA, aka Obamacare) a health insurance policy that would pay up to a year of certain benefits. But the policy defined a year as 365 days. The year I was getting benefits was a leap year. I knew that the insurer was likely not to pay me for the 366th day. That cost me money, but at least I wasn't surprised as I had read the policy. The insurance summary the company provided that touted the full year coverage somehow left out that little detail of how the year is defined. It's that kind of move to hide those kind of penny pinching provisions that contributes to consumers not liking and having distrust of insurance companies.

As it applies to this thread, I've met over the years some people who were upset that the damage to the car they rented was not covered by their own insurer because in their state rental car coverage isn't required by law and isn't automatically included in all liability insurance plans in then state. They had to ask (or better yet have read the policy) to ensure it's included. The additional cost isn't much, but by treating it as an add-on the company can advertise an even lower premium rate.