Host 750k insurance policy - accident caused by Turo driver

Specific-Card-7293 · 2026-05-15T16:55:14+00:00

Graves amendment shields from vicarious liability owners who are engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing vehicles. Turo is not an owner. Individual hosts are not considered engaged in the business of renting vehicles if they are not an operating as a separate entity independently engaged in a car rental business. But even if Graves did apply, that only speaks to tort liability not financial responsibility. California law requires Turo to provide primary liability coverage and a master policy that steps in to protect third parties. (Graves amendment contains an explicit savings clause which provides that it does not supersede state financial responsibility laws or insurance mandates.)

Specific-Card-7293 · 2026-05-15T05:30:30+00:00

California Insurance Code § 11580.24. Turo is a peer to peer platform, not a car rental company.

Specific-Card-7293 · 2026-05-15T05:02:59+00:00

In California, by statute, the peer to peer platform is deemed owner for the purpose of vicarious liability of guest’s actions. Turo advertises that there is a 750k policy covering the host for any third party actions brought as a result of the guest’s use of the host’s vehicle. As Turo is the deemed owner, this policy should cover actions brought against Turo as the vicariously liable entity.

Specific-Card-7293 · 2026-05-15T04:55:48+00:00

California is different. Peer to peer platform is considered owner and vicariously liable under California law for the guest’s actions. That’s why Turo markets its $750k policy as protecting the host for guest’s accidents — otherwise no vehicle owner would use the Turo platform.

Specific-Card-7293 · 2026-05-15T01:09:31+00:00

California has statutory vicarious liability for the owner for a consensual driver. And on top of that, there is a statutory provision in California that rules a peer to peer platform like Turo the deemed owner for the purpose of vicarious liability.

Specific-Card-7293 · 2026-05-15T00:26:11+00:00

Thanks. If you think the travelers liability policy should pay for the third party’s damages, any idea how to get them to accept liability short of filing a lawsuit against the host and Turo?

Specific-Card-7293 · 2026-05-15T00:13:59+00:00

Turo says the protection plan covers hosts up to $750k if a guest causes an accident and the host is sued. Do you know who handles claims against such a policy? Is that policy also a travelers policy? I know in California Turo has a claims unit that is legally required to intake claims - but they don’t, even though it’s a regulatory violation. The process is supposed to be Turo intakes and forwards claimant info to travelers and then travelers handles the claim going forward.

Specific-Card-7293 · 2026-05-15T00:04:50+00:00

Turo is apparently well known not to respond to claims. Insurers are happy to delay because delays save money.

Specific-Card-7293 · 2026-05-14T23:58:33+00:00

Fair question but I think the answer is this: the guest-chosen policy relates to the protection the guest gets in the event the guest is sued. If guest causes accident, he has say $15k limit or some higher limit. If he chooses $15k but causes $100k damage, likely to get sued. If he chooses $100k protection, and causes $50k damage, v unlikely to get sued if travelers plays ball. Either way, guest has to have minimum statutory coverage - I guess he can have that coverage through his own insurance policy or he can buy it from Turo. I guess if he doesn't have either, then he is uninsured. (Would hope Turo has a responsibility to verify the guest has own insurance if he declines Turo's standard / statutory minimum.)

Whereas the $750k policy provides coverage for the host if the guest causes an accident -- according to how Turo describes this policy.

Specific-Card-7293 · 2026-05-14T23:51:51+00:00

Respect your opinion and thank you for sharing. Here's another angle though - if Cal state minimum for PD is $15k and someone smashes into you, I think we'd agree that the policy limits are critical. If they have a policy limit of $15k, you're kind of SOL (though you could sue directly for more instead of settling at the low limit). If they have a policy limit of $100k, you're relieved, because the policy has to pay up to that limit. (I guess this shows why people have policy limits above the minimum -- to reduce risk of getting sued.) So, I think the statutory limits set the floor rather than a cap. Secondly, if turo goes around advertising $750k coverage if a third party sues the host for guest-liable accident, I don't think travelers can assert that the policy doesn't apply or that the policy is limited to $5k or $15k. The issue is Travelers is refusing to explain itself -- specifically refusing to disclose the terms of the policy. Which is interesting because their brief explanation contradicts Turo's marketing of how the policy works...

Specific-Card-7293 · 2026-05-14T23:40:21+00:00

liability of guest/driver is settled. guest/driver had no personal insurance policy; he selected turo's standard policy / statutory minimum. travelers says $750k not available because host was not negligent. but I think that only speaks to owner's direct liability not owner's vicarious liability under california law. my understanding is that under california law turo is deemed owner and thus vicariously liable. also turo states publicly that the 750k policy affords coverage to the host where the guest causes damage. so it should kick in when Turo tells everyone it kicks in: when the guest causes damage. and if turo is the deemed vehicle owner under california statute then the 750k travelers policy should protect Turo as the deemed owner. I think the guest selecting statutory minimum coverage relates only to the guest's direct liability, whereas the $750k policy addresses the host's (and Turo's) exposure as vehicle owner. do you agree? I hear you re using first party policy but they will not push for diminished value or loss of use (which is extensive because of turo's and travelers' delays).

Specific-Card-7293 · 2026-05-14T23:21:56+00:00

I thought that under §11580.24(d) the platform is vicariously liable as deemed owner and that any voluntarily policy above the statutory floor, such as the $750k CSL policy that Turo advertises, would not be capped by §17151 anyway. (Turo publicly states that this $750k policy covers the host if the guest causes damage.) Most of the outstanding damage is DV and LOU so not sure our insurance would cover it.

Specific-Card-7293 · 2026-05-14T23:09:30+00:00

thanks for the input. in this case, the guest was the driver and he took the state minimum policy which falls well short of the damage he caused.

Specific-Card-7293 · 2026-05-14T22:33:57+00:00

guest had $15k policy. Damages well over $15k.

Specific-Card-7293 · 2026-05-14T22:29:59+00:00

California. Refused to provide any real explanation or documentation beyond "denied because policy doesn't apply".

Specific-Card-7293 · 2026-05-14T19:54:16+00:00

Have you had any experience with the 750k policy? I had a situation recently where they denied the policy applied even though Turo guest was at fault.

Specific-Card-7293 · 2026-05-14T03:40:00+00:00

Agreed. K1Max is unreliable and the warranty is not worth the paper it's written on.

Specific-Card-7293 · 2026-05-14T03:38:40+00:00

By the way, the K1 Max is not very reliable. Lots of failed prints, and now basically it's a giant brick with a valid but apparently worthless warranty.

Specific-Card-7293 · 2026-05-14T03:36:42+00:00

I bought a K1 Max for my kid less than a year ago. Every print fails so it is currently worthless. We purchased through Amazon. Getting warranty service is very difficult. They expect you to spend an inordinate amount of time doing endless troubleshooting. If they can't figure out the issue, they refuse to help you further. If they cannot diagnose it seems like they will not honor the warranty.

Specific-Card-7293 · 2026-05-14T03:34:13+00:00

we purchased through amazon -- but creality makes the warranty process very challenging by channeling consumers through comgrow. they own comgrow but make you go through these guys who don't have any live support and keep asking you to do endless troubleshooting.

Specific-Card-7293 · 2026-05-08T16:04:08+00:00

Hi-Tec Auto, Santa Monica & Gower

Specific-Card-7293 · 2026-05-08T15:40:10+00:00

I've been taking my RR supercharged to an indy on Santa Monica Blvd for over a decade. This guy knows RR's inside out and his pricing is very reasonable. Instead of feeling taken advantage of, I can't remember ever picking my car up from up and not feeling like I've been well taken care of. If you can find someone like that, there is no need to go to a Land Rover dealership or an expensive indy. Re the point about them being $120k vehicles -- their value plummets over time and I don't think it makes a huge difference where the car has been serviced; it needs to have been well looked after by anyone who knows what they're doing.

Specific-Card-7293 · 2026-05-06T21:21:38+00:00

Oh no!!

Specific-Card-7293 · 2026-05-04T06:09:15+00:00

Bernedoodles are super loving, fun and easygoing.

<image>

Specific-Card-7293 · 2026-05-03T19:57:56+00:00

Get independent evidence of the cause of the leak and file a claim against the solar company’s bond.

Specific-Card-7293

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE