 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bowers v. Alamo Rent-A-Car Inc.6/17/1998
specified notice requirements are satisfied. Inasmuch as the legislature has unambiguously spoken in favor of primary coverage by the renter's insurer, I cannot agree with the majority's analysis in this case.
There are at least two reasons why the legislature might have decided to allow the renter's insurer to assume primary coverage for bodily injury liability. First, if the rental agency's insurer is required to be primary, rental agencies would be forced to charge their customers more in order to cover their liability insurance costs. But if customers already have liability coverage under their individual policies, the customers are essentially paying for the same coverage twice. Thus, the overall insurance burden on the consumer is higher than it would be if the renter's insurer were primary. Second, car rental agencies are part of the tourist industry. Obviously, visitors coming to Hawai'i rent automobiles. Imposing primary coverage on the rental agency's insurer increases the insurance burden on rental agencies, and eventually increases the cost of renting a car in Hawai'i. Inasmuch as tourism is the driving force behind Hawaii's economy, the legislature was probably concerned about the detrimental impact of increased insurance costs on the tourist industry.
In addition, I do not believe that the overall public policy behind HRS ch. 431:10C is offended by requiring the renter's insurer to be primary. We have stated that the Hawai'i no-fault insurance law
was intended to set a base line, minimum level of automobile liability insurance protection. From the outset, it was the legislature's objective to make "a basic, comprehensive, equitable, and reasonably priced auto insurance policy" universally available. Hse. Conf. Comm. Rep. No. 13, in 1973 House Journal, at 1219 . . .; see also Hse. Conf. Comm. Rep. No. 28, in 1974 House Journal, at 864 ("The no-fault law will continue to provide a basic, comprehensive, equitable and reasonably priced auto insurance premium.") . . . . Thus, "every car on the road [would] have the basic minimal no-fault coverage." Sen. Conf. Comm. Rep. No. 4, in 1973 Senate Journal, at 638 . . . .
Hurip, 76 Hawai'i at 217, 873 P.2d at 96 (emphasis omitted). Thus, in my view, the public policy behind HRS ch. 431:10C is to ensure that "every car on the road the basic minimal no-fault coverage." This goal is entirely separate from the question whether the renter's insurer or the rental agency's insurer is primary. As long as one of these insurers provides minimal coverage, the public policy behind our statutes is satisfied. The new public policy discovered by the majority, in favor of imposing primary coverage on the owners of vehicles, is unrelated to the general public policy that we have recognized in the past.
For these reasons, I disagree with the majority's holding that Alamo's rental agreement violated public policy. Nevertheless, I agree with the majority's result based on a plain reading of the contractual terms involved in this case.
The Alamo rental agreement contained an "escape clause" providing:
If there is no other valid and collectible insurance, whether primary, excess, or contingent, available to the renter of any authorized driver while operating the car, then Alamo's vehicle liability policy shall pay damages not to exceed minimum limits required by applicable law.
Majority opinion, at 2. However, it should be noted that because this clause specifically states that it applies to valid and collectible insurance, "whether primary, excess, or contingent," it is more accurately known as a
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|