Rental car brake failure leads to accident

[Zigner]

If the building owner believes that you are liable for the damages to the building and the consequential costs associated with that damage, they are free to sue you.

If you are sued, and you believe that a third party (like Zipcar) is liable for those damages, you can implede them as a third party defendant.

If you believe the insurance company should indemnify you for those damages, you can implede them as a third party defendant. This would require that there is a contract between you and the insurance company. There's a good chance that any contract is between the insurance company and Zipcar. If that's true, they would have no obligation to indemnify you.

There's also a possibility that any contract excludes consequential damages.

The cost of the security person is a consequential damage, not property damage.

Zipcar provides third-party liability insurance for the driver when using their cars. The OP is covered.

 

[xylene]

The cost of the security person is a consequential damage, not property damage.

Why this has gone on without mitigation for 30 days and apparently is still is going on is something that requires an explanation.

 

[HighwayMan]

Another point is that the building hired someone without first informing me. I happen to know someone who would do it for much less.

They are under no obligation to hire one of your friends because it costs less. Is your friend even licensed by SOMB?

 

[jc233]

They are under no obligation to hire one of your friends because it costs less. Is your friend even licensed by SOMB?

That is true, and no he is not. But the person they hired is wearing a t-shirt and jeans. I highly doubt he is licensed by SOMB. Even then, should they not give me notice that they are hiring someone for the role and that I might be liable for the expenses? Not after he is hired. The building manager has, so far, also ignored my emails about hiring someone for a lower cost.

Thank you everyone for the comments and advice.

 

[Zigner]

That is true, and no he is not. But the person they hired is wearing a t-shirt and jeans. I highly doubt he is licensed by SOMB. Even then, should they not give me notice that they are hiring someone for the role and that I might be liable for the expenses? Not after he is hired. The building manager has, so far, also ignored my emails about hiring someone for a lower cost.

Thank you everyone for the comments and advice.

What? No licensed workman would wear a t-shirt and jeans?

 

[jc233]

What? No licensed workman would wear a t-shirt and jeans?

I lived in the Middle East my whole life until a year ago, so maybe it's different there. But I'll find out tonight if he's licensed or not and update you.

 

[jc233]

Zipcar provides third-party liability insurance for the driver when using their cars. The OP is covered.

Are you sure that they cover third party liability? It says specifically third party property damage.

 

[ShyCat]

Even then, should they not give me notice that they are hiring someone for the role and that I might be liable for the expenses?

They didn't need your permission so, No.

The building manager has, so far, also ignored my emails about hiring someone for a lower cost.

Not surprising. No response is your answer: No.

 

[Zigner]

Are you sure that they cover third party liability? It says specifically third party property damage.

https://support.zipcar.com/hc/en-us/articles/220433387-Insurance-Coverage

 

[jc233]

Update: The insurance company has confirmed that they would pay up to $25,000 maximum. They are also finally looking into investigating the car's malfunctioning, but are saying that I would pay for the engineer's costs if no physical evidence is found. It has been one month since the incident. Is this reasonable?

On another note, the security guard who was hired does not speak a word of English. He would not be able to respond if someone told him they were going to rob the building. He is often sleeping on the job, playing lacrosse against the wall, or not present at all. I have filmed several of these instances, and filmed a conversation with him showing that he doesn't speak a word of English. How they deemed him qualified for this job is incredible. Do I have enough evidence to dispute the building's claim? They want me to pay 9k for his services now, in addition to the 16k in damage.

@Zigner @Stevef @xylene @HighwayMan

 

[HighwayMan]

Who they hire is on them, that doesn't mean you are off the hook for paying.

Of course, you never indicated that you found out if he was licensed. You said you were going to find out and then forgot about it.

 

[jc233]

That can't be right, otherwise they could act in bad faith. What if it takes them a year to fix the door? What if they pay someone to secure the building who is never present (which is basically the case)?

He wasn't able to respond to my question if he was licensed. He doesn't speak a word of English, and I don't speak Spanish.

 

[HighwayMan]

If it makes you feel better, you can report the situation to the SOMB since they are the licensing authority.

None of that means you're automatically not responsible for any costs involved. The building taking a year to fix the problem wouldn't exactly be considered reasonable.

 

[jc233]

And I am arguing that the building is not being reasonable. They are taking over a month to fix a door, hired an ineffective security guard and didn't even consider offers to hire a cheaper, also qualified one. It is arguable if hiring a security guard is even worth it, as there is another door that prevents entry into the building, and a large sign would obviously be more effective than the guy currently sitting there. Why should I pay for that?

 

[HighwayMan]

So then if you get sued you can argue that in front of the judge.