Purco Fleet Services, Inc.

Revdex.com Complaint Department Revdex.com of Utah 5763 South Redwood Rd #22 Salt Lake City, UT  84123  ...

RE:                                      �...⇄ Complaint Case #:  [redacted]             Renter:                                    [redacted]             PurCo Claim No.:                   [redacted]             Damage Incident With:          Avis Car Rental, Duluth, MN   Revdex.com Complaint Department:   I am in receipt of your email dated September 19, 2016, concerning the above-referenced claim and I appreciate the opportunity to respond to you on behalf of PurCo Fleet Services, Inc. (“PurCo”).  PurCo received this particular damage claim by assignment from Sonju Enterprises, Avis System Licensee in Duluth, MN (“Avis”), and will answer in the capacity of assignee.   PurCo is a risk management company that has serviced the car rental industry for more than 22 years. In that time, PurCo has handled hundreds of thousands of recovery claims for rental vehicles in all 50 states. PurCo has received comparatively few complaints in the last two-plus decades, which is particularly notable given the fact that renters rarely believe they should be responsible for damage or other outstanding obligations concerning vehicles they rent. We are very proud of our record and reputation in the industry.   [redacted] rented a 2015 Kia Rio (the “Vehicle”) from Avis on May 1, 2016, returning it on May 18, 2016.  At the time of Ms. [redacted]’s rental, the Vehicle did not have any damage.  This fact is demonstrated by the pre-rental inspection slip for the Vehicle, which was completed and signed by Ms. [redacted] prior to her taking the car off the Avis lot.  A copy of the pre-rental inspection slip is attached hereto in Exhibit A.  In her complaint, Ms. [redacted] acknowledges inspecting the Vehicle prior to taking off the Avis lot.  After Ms. [redacted] returned the Vehicle, Avis employees discovered damage to the Vehicle’s right front fender above the tire, and also to the rear bumper’s left corner.  This was new damage. Contrary to Ms. [redacted]’s contention, the Vehicle was not moved after she returned it.  It was inspected in the return spot.   Pursuant to the Rental Agreement that she executed when she rented the Vehicle, Ms. [redacted] agreed to be responsible for all damage, regardless of fault: “[Y]ou are responsible; and you will pay us for all loss of or damage to the car regardless of cause, or who, or what caused it.  If the car is damaged, you will pay our estimated repair cost … As part of our loss, you’ll also pay for loss of use of the car, without regard to our fleet utilization, plus an administrative fee…”  See Exhibit A, Rental Agreement, paragraph 8.   Also at the time of her rental, Ms. [redacted] was offered, but declined to purchase, the loss damage waiver (“LDW”), a contractual option by which Avis ordinarily waives its right to hold renters responsible for any damage to their rental vehicles.  Ms. [redacted]’s declination of LDW is important, because without LDW, she agreed to be responsible and to pay for any and all damage to the Vehicle.  Rental Agreement, para. 8, supra.   Ms. [redacted] contends that she noticed the damage to the Vehicle after having driven it for a certain distance.  It is not clear how much time had elapsed between the commencement of Ms. [redacted]’s rental and her alleged discovery of the damage.  In any event, it does not matter – the Vehicle left the Avis lot in Ms. [redacted]’s care under a bailment contract with no pre-existing damage.  It is admitted and confirmed that Ms. [redacted] did, in fact, inspect the Vehicle at the commencement of her rental.  Any damage discovered after that point would be her responsibility, pursuant to the Rental Agreement.  Ms. [redacted] alleges that the damage all pre-dated her rental, but she offers nothing further to substantiate this contention.  To the contrary, all documentary and contractual evidence indicates that the damage pre-dated her rental and is her responsibility.   Ms. [redacted] appears also to argue that the damage on the estimate that PurCo provided includes damage to other parts of the Vehicle.  A closer look at the estimate, however, will reveal that all the work was related to the repair of the damaged areas.  The mirror, door handle and front bumper had to be removed and then replaced as a part of the normal repair process.  There is nothing to suggest that these parts had been damaged, as well.  Contrary to Ms. [redacted]’s contention, all damages were communicated to her by PurCo Claims Specialist Tyler C[redacted], on May 27, 2016, as a part of the original claim packet.  See Exhibit A.   Ms. [redacted] makes much of the communication between PurCo and MasterCard, but then confirms that she ordered MasterCard to not pay anything on her behalf.  It is our experience that MasterCard’s card member benefits would pay, at the very least, a portion or all of a renter’s deductible.  Ms. [redacted] is free to disregard this option, of course, but it is to her detriment.  PurCo remained in regular contact with MasterCard, in any event, in an attempt to resolve this claim.  It proved to be fruitless, as noted above.   In conclusion, PurCo stands by the claim as originally submitted.  It is valid and the damage is Ms. [redacted]’s responsibility, pursuant to the Rental Agreement she signed.  As always, PurCo is willing to negotiate the claim and find a mutually satisfactory resolution.   Our track record with regard to disputes supports the fact that we are always willing to work with renters on disputed claims.  This claim is no different.   I trust this will resolve your concerns.  If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 801-794-6243.   Sincerely,   Tony S[redacted] Associate General Counsel PurCo Fleet Services, Inc. [redacted] Admitted in Nevada Utah admission pending