Car rental- replace the windshield for a ding?

[LA_guy]

I live in Los Angeles, CA. On vacation, I rented a car in Bismark, ND, from Hertz. I didn't take any of the insurance options.

While I had the car, it got a "ding" in the windshield, roughly the size of a nickel. I was on the interstate at the time, not some unpaved road.

I returned the car and didn't think to mention it to the agent when I dropped off the keys at the counter. A few weeks later I get a bill for $536.47 from an adjuster (PurCo Fleet Services), with the claim being "broken windshield".

I called a company in Bismark that repairs windshield dings, and they said they charge $50-60 to repair a nickel-sized ding.

I called the adjuster and was told "Hertz policy is to replace the windshield for any ding. If you dispute this write us a letter."

I haven't composed the letter yet, but I was hoping for some advice as to what to say. The rental agreement says "Ordinary wear due to reasonable use excepted, you must return the car to Hertz in the same condition it is in when you receive it." Can this be considered ordinary wear, or can I offer to pay $50 for a ding repair instead of the $500??

Thanks in advance.

 

[LA_guy]

Well, by way of a bump, here's the letter I'm sending to the adjuster. Any comments on my chances?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday, Sept. 25, 2001

(adjuster address)

Re: Claim number: XXXXXX

Dear Ms. XXXXX,

This letter serves as official notice that I am disputing the claim (claim # XXXXXX) issued against me by Hertz Rent A Car in Bismark, ND, in which Hertz is attempting to collect $526.47 in damages from me.

Your letter to me dated 8/30/2001 included a Vehicle Damage Report. This report lists the alleged damage as “broken windshield found by U&A.” I have no understanding of who or what “U&A” is, however I dispute that the windshield was broken when I returned the car to Hertz. In fact, the windshield was entirely intact and completely functional when I returned the car to Hertz.

The only damage to the windshield at the time I returned the car was a small chip, or “ding”, approximately the size of a dime. This chip occurred during my rental period while I was operating the vehicle in full compliance with paragraphs 2 and 5 of Hertz’s Rental Agreement Terms & Conditions document (hereafter Rental Agreement). The chip in question was located approximately one inch below the point at which the rear-view mirror attaches to the windshield, and in no way obscured the vision of the driver or passengers. This minor chip was not deep, did not fully penetrate the windshield, and was in no way distracting to the driver when in normal operation of the vehicle. The chip occurred while driving on Interstate 94, when a small piece of debris struck the windshield. All of these statements can be verified by XXX, YYY, ZZZ, who were passengers in the car before, during, and after the incident that caused the chip.

I direct your attention to paragraph 3 of the Rental Agreement, which states that “ordinary wear due to reasonable use” is excepted from my obligation to return the car to Hertz in the same condition it is in when I receive it. I consider driving on the Interstate reasonable use of a rental car. And certainly the minor nature of the chip, based on size, location, and depth, as described in the paragraph above, falls well within a reasonable definition of “ordinary wear.”

In our phone conversation on 9/17/2001, you explained to me that the position of Hertz Rent A Car, Bismark ND in this matter is as follows: “Company policy” dictates that any damage to the vehicle’s windshield, of any kind, requires that the entire windshield be replaced. Such a position is both unreasonable and far beyond the scope of the Rental Agreement. Nowhere in the Rental Agreement is there any clause giving Hertz the authority to make excessive repairs beyond those necessary to return the vehicle to its pre-rental condition. Hertz cannot claim that “company policy” dictates the scope of repairs allowed, unless said policy is explicitly stated in the Rental Agreement. I direct your attention to the first introductory sentence of the Rental Agreement, which states that the Rental Agreement constitutes the agreement between myself and Hertz Rent A Car. “Company policy” is not in the Rental Agreement, and is therefore not part of the agreement between myself and Hertz Rent A Car.

As such, it is my position that the amount claimed by Hertz ($526.47) is exorbitant and excessive. A phone call to a Bismark-based windshield repair company (Crack Magic Windshield Repair, 701-220-0891), yielded a preliminary quote of $50 to $60 for a chip of the size and depth that occurred during my rental. If Hertz Rent A Car is willing to drop (in writing) any & all further claims relating to this rental, I am willing to pay damages in the range of $50-60.

If Hertz Rent A Car finds this unacceptable, and persists in its current unreasonable position, I will be contacting an attorney to pursue this matter on my behalf.

Sincerely,

(me)