> When I rent a car I am not responsible for repairs.
You certainly are, in most places, if you crash it into something. This wasn't a failure of the manufacturer's materials or workmanship, it was a collision loss.
You certainly are, in most places, if you crash it into something. This wasn't a failure of the manufacturer's materials or workmanship, it was a collision loss.
Making subassemblies replaceable in part rather than in whole is definitely a bonus. When they're only replaceable in whole, I do consider it deficient engineering, especially if a small change would make it possible.
An example from motorbikes: I would never buy a Triumph Tiger 800 because the rear subframe is welded to the rest of the frame. Any drop which causes a bend in the rear subframe - easily enough done since the passenger footpegs and exhaust are attached to it - would require replacing the whole frame to fix. In most high performance bikes, the rear subframe is bolted on.
Although if we're just talking plain-english and not legalese, I'd say that your assertion is a stretch: that colliding with debris is not a "collision".
And yes, Tesla repairability is poor. That's kind of what you can expect to get when you prioritize time-to-market above anything else. I like to buy old motorcycles that don't have any parts availability and everything has to be custom done... but I wouldn't do that with my daily driver.
I also think insurance is a bit of a red herring here. You wouldn't claim on insurance for a flat tyre either; some things are just bad luck. It's the quality of engineering - what I do think is on topic - which controls the risk.
This I would say is more of design oversight on tesla’s part. At the very least there should have been a shroud or cover over more vulnerable parts.
The insurance that covers such an event is literally called collison insurance.
For posterity: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/collision-insurance.asp
> ... it will cover damage from potholes, and accidents involving an inanimate object.
In the rental space, collision damage waivers - CDWs - explicitly don't cover undercarriage, wheels, windshields and so on, the kind of damage we're talking about here.
https://www.aviva.co.uk/insurance/motor/car-insurance/what-a...
https://www.avis.com/en/help/usa-faqs/cdw-insurance
https://www.avis.com/en/products-and-services/protections/lo...
Well the other night some asshole decided to pac-man all the cones on the highway late at night so we had to navigate a field of almost impossible to see cones (the borders are black and there were no lights up). Several cars, including mine ended up running over a few. I got lucky as it just messed up my paint a bit on the front bumper and I lost a license plate. Two other vehicles crashed over it, really sucked.
Called Geico when I got home and was informed I don't have collision coverage. They told me for this I would have needed comprehensive coverage and collision coverage.
Well joke's on them, my renewal is this month and I'm bouncing. I'd rather find another company that won't weasel out on me. When I signed up I said I wanted to be covered no matter what. I pay enough monthly I should be.
Forcing nsurance (health and renters, cars,etc) should be illegal,it doesn't work as it should. It ends up being a tax we pay to still have to pay out of pocket no matter what.
I am fairly certain that it would be illegal for an agent to sell that to you without clarifying.
Funny enough, one of the first articles to pop up in a search for this is from Geico: https://www.geico.com/information/aboutinsurance/auto/full-c...
What's your alternative to mandatory liability insurance, given that there are drivers with much greater liability risk than others?
As another reply to me mentioned, 'full-coverage' should be just that. The US allows so much lies I believe nothing, our gov't lies ,ads lie, politicians lie,police lie,lawyers...well
You'd also need some new framework for dealing with high-risk drivers - e.g. instead of increasing the insurance cost for someone with a DUI conviction, you'd need to simply take away their ability to drive.
There also exist numerous jurisdictions with publicly provided insurance, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance_Corporation_of_Briti...
I have a feeling the rats are collaborating on price.
Definition of collide
intransitive verb 1 : to come together with solid or direct impact
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collide
Its a stretch to describe road debris coming together with solid impact to the undercarriage a collision?
Now insurance certainly can exclude things that are collisions. A common on in the US are animal collisions like deer ect...
Relying on the dictionary alone can mislead you.
Here's the pertinent definition from my policy (USAA specifically):
"Collision" means the impact with an object and includes upset of a vehicle. Loss caused by the following is covered under Comprehensive Coverage and is not considered collision: fire; missiles or falling objects; hail, water or flood; malicious mischief or vandalism; theft or larceny; riot or civil commotion; explosion orearthquake; contact with bird or animal; windstorm; or breakage of window glass> bird or animal
I want to know the background behind why some lawyer found that necessary. :)
The person I was replying to wasn't referencing any particular contract. They were just speaking generally about hitting road debris being a stretch to define as a collision.
> It's a stretch to describe road debris hitting the undercarriage of a car a "collision".
Seeing as how neither I nor he referenced any particular insurance contract, why would we then bother to use your insurance contract to define the term instead of probably the one shared point between us to define the term (the dictionary)? Why not reference a contract I'll sign with a friend where for the purposes of the contract a collision is defined only as a 5 foot person running into a blue colored wall. I guess a car slamming into a wall isn't a collision anymore since this one contract defines it a different arbitrary way!
While I am on the side of right to repair I don't see how this is that relevant to the issue. It seems like more of an issue with insurance/rental laws, transparency in legal agreements, tesla's pricing & service being a bad deal, and possibly negligence on the renter's behalf. I don't think that any company should be allowed to hold a renter liable unless it's proven they damaged the property on purpose. Usually there are a lot of protections in place for renters so it's possible tesla is breaking the law or the renter accepted some liability attempting to save money.
Rentals and shared ownership situations are always messy anyways... A lot of this just reminds me of: "My condo HOA decided to hire the most expensive roof repair company in town!! Why can't we just pour some cheap tar across the roof and call it good for a few more years?!?!"
If he has comprehensive at all then he almost certainly has collision coverage. It’s just that, then it’s $16k accident that’s he’s at fault for.
> "the owner's insurance policy didn't cover comprehensive claims from road debris"
My guess was that this would have been a comprehensive claim, but he didn't have that insurance plan. Could just be a deceptive play on words to evade the real issue...
An other possible reason would be you don't have enough money on hand at the moment the issue was discovered giving you a few months to set asside enough money. Similar, thing the contractors schedule is packed so a quick temp repair can hold you off while you wait the week or two for his crew to begin work. An other similar issue is waiting on materials if your roof uses a material that is not locally stocked.
Tar also has a nasty problem of becoming brittle from UV light something roofs get plenty of. So instead of flexing under thermal expansion and contraction it just cracks. So its not ideal for anything but a temporary fix.
Now for choosing the most expensive contractor that is on your condo. Although they could have certainly been valid reasons.