Talk:Damage waiver

Insurance or not

This article contradicts itself. "It is basically a form of car insurance. .... Against popular notion, it is not insurance" 69.245.39.139 23:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I provided expanded wording, to clarify why it can be called insurance or not. I hope the original contributor agrees--Numbersinstitute 15:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Most credit card companies that do offer rental vehicle coverage will only make up for what the renter's insurance company does not pay. Meaning, the insured will have to pay their deductible first. Depending on the length of the rental and the cost of the Damage Waiver, this could be the obvious choice. 65.197.19.240 (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I took out the sentence "Unless you are renting with a good honest company where Damage Waiver (CDW) is a benefit, and will prevent you having to pay your insurance deductible." because it doesn't make sense. 142.244.172.119 (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Credit Card Comparisons

The table compares the big four: MasterCard, Visa, Discover, American Express, and each of them excludes coverage in Ireland, Israel, Jamaica. In contrast to this, as of Oct 1, 2012 CitiBank does provide worldwide coverage without geography exclusions to Citi® / AAdvantage®, Citi ThankYou®, Citi® Dividend or Citi CashReturns® members (written policy available for cardmembers at https://www.benefitbuilder.citi.com/). Should Citi become a fifth column in the table? Ymf (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not clear if this credit card insurance applies to all credit card holders around the world or just US card holders.--Jonathan Fain (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The mention that Visa Europe does not provide cover is based on a search in 2008, and is well out-of-date. I know that my French Gold card has provided this kind of cover for a number of years now (2016) and I'm sure that similar provisions will apply elsewhere in Europe, and probably elsewhere. I am not convinced, however, that providing more and more details about small differences in coverage in this article can be maintained. There are so many issuing banks, with so many variants in cover that I believe that any attempt to be comprehensive is likely to be out-of-date by the time it could be completed. If that is so, perhaps the article would be more useful if it listed the generic issues with this kind of cover rather than attempt to become a 'bible' of precisely who offers what. Limiting itself to the generic issues would enable editors to introduce new/additional generic issues as they arose, without the need to dot every i and cross every t. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satprof (talk • contribs) 09:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The note asking for sources is unclear: all items in that paragraph come from the table. Each column in the table has its source at the bottom. Is there a better way to show this?Numbersinstitute (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Wording Issues: "You", Liability, Dirt Roads

The article had a warning box, saying that the use of "you" to address the reader was not appropriate encyclopedia style. I agree "you" is not Wikipedia style, and usually means "the renter" or "the customer" in this article. I re-worded sentences to remove "you" and also removed the warning box.

An anonymous contributor inserted language Feb 1, 2011 which made some much needed improvements. At the same time it also (a) said that Damage Waiver does not cover liability. In fact some car rental companies do sell waivers of liability for damage to others in their damage waivers. And (b) it said that car rental companies charge for driving on dirt roads: the worst I've seen cited is that some credit card coverages omit dirt roads. Numbersinstitute (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Gaps in coverage

There has been a back-and-forth over gaps in coverage. Some contributors note that even Damage waivers from the car rental companies can leave gaps (deductibles, or low limits). Other contributors change this to say that refusing coverage from the car rental companies can leave gaps. Both are true, and I wish people would leave both truths present. My experience is that damage waivers in the US are pretty complete, but damage waivers elsewhere have pretty big gaps. Maybe US authors are removing the writing about car rental companies' gaps in coverage, because they don't realize those gaps can be hundreds of dollars abroad (For example $1,000 deductible in http://www.intltravelnews.com/2007/08/rented-car-online-for-heathrow/ ) If there is any firm source for comparing countries, citing it would be a solution, but in the meantime, it is simply true that coverage from anyone may have gaps. Numbersinstitute (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

On 26 Nov 2011, Kuru removed a citation in the "Risks Addressed" section for the fact that Texas & California have different liability practices than elsewhere, and added a "citation needed" flag. The reason given by Kuru was that the previous source was not a reliable source. Wikipedia policy says "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context... Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS. The previous source was a website of an expert in the field, Paula Lyons, who is familiar with rental car contracts, http://www.best-car-rental-tips.com/liability-insurance.html. I do not know the lady, but she seems to be the best source available. An alternative would be to go to a substantial number of car rental company websites to see if they say whether liability insurance is included in Texas & California. This could be taken as inappropriate original research. In any case national company websites lack information on policy differences in individual states, and the companies lack state websites. Furthermore the existence of a gap in a major type of insurance, for 2 major states, is important to the article. Perhaps the reference should name the expert rather than just citing her web page. Naturally web pages cannot be the only source for an article, but they are legitimate for individual points, when paper sources have not been found. While her web pages are supported by commercial links, as are most web pages, including newspapers and journals, her statement about the Texas & California gap does not seem to result from any commercial bias. Numbersinstitute (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, this appears to be a self-published advice page. While it's great that the author worked as a rental clerk for several years, that does not make her an expert in legal code which would meet the exemptions in our policy on reliable sources. Her page also notes that "no guarantee is given that the information provided in this website is correct, complete, and/or up-to-date." If no reliable source can be located, then that is a good reason to remove the statement. I concur that there is no significant commercial interest here; it appears to be a good faith advice column that may be more suitable for an "external link", but not a reference. Kuru (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Lyons provided company sources, which I added. Of course these are also not "guaranteed" (what is?) but I hope will be more acceptable. Article had a "Further reading" section rather than "External links" so I added Lyons there. Not sure the difference, so I didn't want to change the section title. Numbersinstitute (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Which drivers are covered

On 17 August 2011, an anonymous contributor changed the description of Amex to say it covers all drivers listed on the rental contract. I'm changing it back to say it only covers cardholders, since that is what the Amex site says, at the sources cited in the table. The Amex site's wording is strange, covering the cardmember "renting and taking control" of the auto. They clarify it later by making a special rule for disabilities, "Coverage continues in effect while the Cardmember remains in control and possession of the Rental Auto. A Cardmember, who is physically challenged and unable to operate the Rental Auto, may be the Primary Renter if he/she is the Cardmember entering into the rental transaction." http://corp.americanexpress.com/GCS/Intl/IDCEN/CorporateCards/Docs/CDWPRUSVIMMGRNEN.pdf They would not need this special rule for disabilities if they always covered extra drivers who are not Cardmembers. Another Amex site reiterates they cover "Cardmembers and their passengers only." https://www295.americanexpress.com/premium/car-rental-insurance-mvt/home.do Literally, this means coverage is when the Cardmember is the driver, and it seems wise to take legal documents literally. If Wikipedians can find a source which indicates that Amex does cover all drivers on the rental contract, even when they are not Cardmembers, the line can be fixed again. Numbersinstitute (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)