(tom) wrote in message . com>...
> > Tom, your information is incorrect. The optional insurance covers the
> > *deductible* on the rental agency's policy, for which you *could* be held
> > responsible in the event that Something Bad happened. But you would *not* be
> > responsible for the entire replacement cost of the vehicle. The agency, as
> > the registrant, is responsible for their own insurance coverage. Can you
> > imagine the lawsuits that could arise if the rental agency had no insurance?
> >
>
> This is very intersting information. I've traveled to the USA 16 times
> and rented about 20 diffent cars from different companies, but
> everybody said, that without buying insurance you have a problem.

Whenever I rented the car in the past except this last time in CA, I
could use the liability portion -(that is if I hit another car, my
insurance will take care of theat car- of the car insurance for the
car I own ON the rental car but I would have to pay for the damage to
the rental car out of my pocket UNLESS I buy the optional insurance
FROM the rental agency.

If you don' own a car in US and have no car insurance plan( eith
liability as th law required or the full coverage plan, you can just
buy both liabilty portion and optional portion for the rental car from
the rental agency...but tht would be expensive...

You do not need to own car to buy liabilty plan; you can get a
non-qoners insurance plan but not all car insurance company sells
that plan...and alos, you being a tourist, they (those who seels
non-owner's insurance plan) would know that you are planning to rent
cars and so I am not sure how expensive that would be...


Hope this helps..

If anyone t=feels that my info is incorrect, pleaes correct me...


> From
> what you say, it means that if I don't buy the insurance and somebody
> for instance steals the car, I only have to pay a couple of hundred
> dollar and not the total price?


> This is the exact opposite of everything I read so far.
> Is there a information on the web that supports your statement (sorry,
> no mistrust, but that's kind of important)
> Thomas