Comments on: ATLA lobbies third branch to ignore car-leasing laws

By: Greedy Trial Lawyer

Greedy Trial Lawyer — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:49:30 +0000

I find it interesting that you call the traditional litigation efforts to overturn a law “lobbying” (to imply improper tactics) but then urge the stacking of courthouses with judges who will rule to your liking as just “fixing a broken civil justice system.”

The only thing “broken” in this argument is your logic.

By: cowpill

cowpill — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 09:54:00 +0000

I am wondering why I need to buy extra insurance when my personnal policy fully protects me while using a rental under contract.

By: E-Bell

E-Bell — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 09:26:14 +0000

I deal with this issue from time to time in my practice because our firm happens to do a lot of business with rental car companies in the District of Columbia.

It’s absurd to hold a rental car company responsible for the negligence of its renters.

The result in D.C., prior to the federal law, was that rental car companies got sued directly, and were potentially exposed to damages far in excess of the mandatory minimum insurance coverages required by law. In many of these cases, it proved impossible to serve the renter (tortfeasor), so on top of the potential damages, the rental car companies are deprived of the one party who could provide a liability defense.