Toecutter

Is it? Negligence means failure to exercise care that a reasonably prudent person would, so does scraping a curb fall under that definition?

Toecutter

This explanation makes the most sense to me. Again, it falls under the cost of doing business.

av_audi

Maybe that is why they are trying to collect from the OP. They fear the insurance will not cover?

To the OP, have you contacted your own insurance yet? If you refer the dealership to your insurance company to handle the claim, they might call the dealership's BS on the tire.

Did some quick search:

http://www.freeadvice.com/law/insura...st_driving.htm
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...9172044AAJV8Z2
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2012/...-is-suspended/

Here is an interesting one:

http://www.state.il.us/court/opinion...ml/4980729.htm

Toecutter

Cliff's Notes version of this one please (or just interpret it for me)? I'm too tired to pick through it.

dsheikh573

"7-317 'Motor vehicle liability policy' defined. * * *
(b) Owner's Policy. Such owner's policy of liability insurance:
1. Shall designate *** all motor vehicles with respect to which coverage is thereby intended to be granted;
2. Shall insure the person named therein and any other person using or responsible for the use of such motor vehicle or vehicles with the express or implied permission of the insured." (Emphasis added.) 625 ILCS 5/7-317(b) (West 1996).

The court concluded section 7-317(b) mandates an owner's automobile insurance policy cover any person using the vehicle with the named insureds permission.

This is from your link above (Bold/Underline added by me) The Supreme Court has basically ruled that insurance stays with the car, not with the driver, assuming the driver was authorized to use the car. From this, the dealer's insurance definitely is the one who owes money, not the test driver nor the test driver's insurance.

This makes logical sense as test drivers may not own a car nor having any insurance, yet it is legal for them to test drive a vehicle.

To the OP : The dealership is likely scamming you. You should not pay anything, not even half, IMO. I have a car on order that is due to arrive sometime this week. When I pick it up, I'll ask the dealer (McGrath-Audi, Glenview, IL) what they think about this situation and get back to you.
Personally, I would not get my insurance company involved yet. Could cause your rates to go up and you probably won't need to get them involved.

BTW, My buddy, Scott, once borrowed a car from his friend Tim. Unfortunately Scott totaled the car and was at fault. Scott had his own insurance. But Tim's insurance was the one that paid up, not Scott's. That agrees with the Supreme Court ruled above.

helix139

That definition sounds like a simple mistake to me. Whether or not this actually is negligence, though, depends upon the circumstances.

av_audi

Based on my quick reading: the test driver got sued by the driver of the car she banged up. The dealer's insurance then had to defend the test driver against the lawsuit brought on by the accident victim. In other words, the test driver is covered by the dealer's insurance.

Like I said before, dealers supposedly often scam manufacturers and customer by charging them both for the same work/parts. They do it in many ways. One is to replace a part on an out of warranty customer car with a component picked off from a brand new car or a used car still under warranty. They charge the customer for the work/part and they also make a warranty claim on the car from which they "stole" the part. A mechanic claimed that in to ongoing improvements, this was one other reason for which manufacturers make small and seemingly trivial modifications to certain parts in order to thwart this type of scam. Take it with a grain of salt, but if this is even partially true, how can they not do it with insurance?

Of course, it could be that they just want to avoid an increase in their insurance premium.

But it seems like this should all be covered under their insurance.

Toecutter

Here's why people lawyer up. It's all about interpretation.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/negligence

Ynnekdude

Need some sort of duty for there to be negligence.

Evlengr

Ok here's an update. Thought maybe these guys would come to their senses and split the cost of the damages, but called today to tell me $526.00 was the bill.

Well figure this one as lesson learned and maybe they will be smart and give me a nice competitive price on the following:

Premium Plus
Auto - (sorry but back getting worse and worse and AT shifts nice)
Rear Sports Diff
Adaptive Suspension
Rear Side Airbags
Carbon inlays
key less entry
Moonlight Metallic Blue

Price: $53,875 and will take another $500 off with reference to tire damage I had to pay for. Almost laughed if it weren't so insulting. This is Silver Spring Audi in MD Talk about rubbing salt in the wound.

Another poster recommended I check out FSK in Frederick.

Site unseen they quoted me:

$51,200

I don't know why people don't mention dealerships in most of the posts, but I believe in giving credit when due and condemnation as well. Think if more people publicly held dealers accountable they would be a lot more consumer friendly.

Unless Silver Spring pulls a rabbit out of their (censored). Guess where I will be going.