I hate to buy Janpaness car. But it seems that I have to go back to them. I leased a GM car, and it leaked oil within 1000KM tuning run. After 2 years, I needed to travel out for a couple of months, and I wished to stop the insurance, and GMAC said I have to pay the liability insurance even though I had the car satying in my garage. I really don't get it. While I stop my other car which was leased from Toyota, they allowed me stop the insurance while just buying a garage insurance which just cost a couple of $s per month.
I see this is your first time using a computer. Welcome to Usenet. I think you accidently clicked on "Google Groups" instead of "AOL Chat", however that is a common mistake. You have my apologies that GMAC wanted to have there vehicle insured, I mean, what craziness is that? Enjoy your "Japaness car", and good luck with your further internet usage.
This certainly should have been covered under any limited warranty your car came with (if you bought it new).
Yes you do. And that's not just something that will be true of GMAC. Anyone who is going to loan you money to purchase a car of any make will expect you to insure it. Oftentimes you must carry full coverage. Someone could steal that car and use it to commit a crime. A natural disaster could take place. Or your garage could burn down. Any number of things could happen, and the lender wants to be sure their risk is minimized.
William, You should not describe the insurance that way. I didn't mean not to buy the insurance. But I do not need to buy the liability one, because the car will run out of my garage. It will not crash other cars, why should I buy that? And Toyota allow me to buy just the garage insurance, if I do not run it. Americans & Janpaness are thinking in different ways. And Janpaness are "STUPID"???
William, You should not describe the insurance that way. I didn't mean not to buy the insurance. But I do not need to buy the liability one, because the car will run out of my garage. It will not crash other cars, why should I buy that? And Toyota allow me to buy just the garage insurance, if I do not run it. Americans & Janpaness are thinking in different ways. And Janpaness are "STUPID"??? ==================================================
You are quite incorrect sir. It does not matter what brand of car you buy, in the US you are always required to keep collision on a car that you have a loan for. That's a protection for the lender. You can't buy just collision - you have to purchase liability insurance also in order to get collision coverage. That's just the way it is. Toyota can't allow you to do anything - it has nothing at all to do with Toyota or any other brand of car - it's insurance law. It's right in your contract with the lender - read it.
Nothing crazy about it! It was sound legal advice and would have been a violation of his lease agreement. Maintaining full coverage was to protect HIM and GMAC, the owner of the vehicle!
If his car had caught fire or was stolen from the garage and resulted in a liability caused by the fire or the thief, the GM coverage would have protected him from any losses that resulted.
If he had dropped the insurance he would have been personally liable for the losses, caused by the fire or the thief.
The insurance coverage he wanted to buy would have only cover losses to the vehicle, not any resulting liabilities
Here's the ways this might go down where I live. Note that only the lawyers do well, particularly in the Toyota case.
In the GMAC case, the insurance covers most contingencies. The claims get filed against the car operator and the insurance pays up to its limits of coverage. Hopefully the insurance limit is high enough that the aggrieved party opts not to file/sue for additional damages. The insurance company's lawyers will represent both the car operator and GMAC.
The thread points out major uninsured contingencies that can occur in the "Toyota" case. The aggrieved then files suit against both the person leasing the car and Toyota (deep pockets theory) and the court may decide how the liability is divided. But in other states the court will allow the vehicle operator and Toyota (or rather their lawyers) to decide. If the liability is huge, and Toyota/Lexus Leasing's lawyers are any good (probably a safe guess), the Toyota "lease customer" will be hung out to dry under one helluva judgment.
If it were mine, I'd keep the insurance but change the 'annual miles driven' to a minimal number...just enough to keep the liability, collision and comprehensive coverages in force.)
Remember too that if you carry "Umbrella" coverage for personal liability, it probably won't pay unless your auto liability covers up to the "floor" of the umbrella coverage.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.