valet parking lot hit and run

[Sylvia Whitney]

What is the name of your state? Baltimore, MD

On Jan. 1, 2003, insured arrived at Mariott Hotel in Baltimore, MD
& paid for valet to park his vehicle, however, hotel's lot was full
so valet parked his vehicle in another lot further down the street
owned by PMS Parking. The following day, insured gave valet his ticket to get his car and when he got it, there was damage. PMS
Parking has denied liability and our subrogation claim stating there is no indication the damages occurred to insured's vehicle
while in their possession.

Question is: Who is the bailee and who should we be pursuing for reimbursement - Marriott Hotel or PMS Parking?

Thanks for your help.

 

[JETX]

"Who is the bailee and who should we be pursuing for reimbursement - Marriott Hotel or PMS Parking?"
*** From your post, it sounds like you are the insurer, correct?? In any case, your pursuit (if you have one) would be against Marriott. There is no direct chain between your policyholder and PMS.

 

[smorr]

Jetx - they are the insured. Can't they pursue both? (i.e. name both in a liability case)
I've seen cases where a person is injured or car hit in parking lot and they usually sue the hotel and the parking company, since the parking company is ultimately responsible for the safety of the car while parked on their lot. It's true the insured will have to prove liability on the part of PMS Parking (what a name, by the way!) but I think it will be up to the attorneys for both Marriot and PMS Parking to prove their liability or lack thereof. I may be reading this wrong too.

 

[JETX]

You/they can name anyone they want in the lawsuit. The problem will likely be that the parking lot has NO liablity to the car owner since there was no contract (or contact) between them. This would simply be a case against the hotel by the owner since THEY (Marriott) had control of the vehicle. The fact that Marriott then contracted to place the car on another lot was Marriott's action.

Needless to say, ALL of the above would be subject to any limitations or disclaimers made by the valet company (usually on the claim ticket or posted signage). Further, the owner would have to show that the actions by Marriott were negligent or malicious and that Marriott was the proximate cause of the damage. Since this is very likely a simple case of 'hit and run' damage to the car, neither Marriott nor the parking lot would be liable unless their actions warranted.

 

[smorr]

Ok - now I understand - thanks - hope the original writer also understands your answer. Thanks again!

 

[Sylvia Whitney]

valet parking

The claim I'm working involves subrogation and what I finally did

 

[Sylvia Whitney]

valet parking

The claim I'm working involves "subrogation" and what I finally did
was file it with Arbitration Forums as Applicant contending (1) a bailment of insured's vehicle existed as Respondent (bailee) had
exclusive possession and control over Applicant vehicle and Re-
spondent (bailee) knowingly accepted it and (2) Respondent, as
bailee, had duty to return vehicle to Applicant (bailor) in same condition in which it was given.

Now that it's been filed with Arb., we'll wait to see what their
decision and final award will be.

Thanks for your input!

 

[smorr]

Awesome! I hope that works for you! Good luck!

Let this forum know if you're successful - I love to hear when the average person finally wins!

I am not a lawyer. The information offered is my personal opinion and is also based personal experience. No warranties are expressed or implied.