Posted On: May 15, 2008, 1:42 pm CDT

Posted By: Kevin Kennedy

Well, there really isn't enough info here to make an informed judgement on that case. Why only $70 went to SF? Was that all the rental he was entitled to due to limited damage to the car that only needed two days to be fixed? If that was the case, why did SF pay so much? If the guy's rental car expense was out of line SF should not have paid that much. If they approved it, the $63 money should go back to the insured because SF enabled him to (or caused him to) rack up excessive rental charges for one reason or another.

Perhaps it was comparative negligence which would have then meant that he should have gotten some of that money back (just like as if it were his deductible). Either way, SF should have paid him some if not all of the recovered funds.

But it really boils down to the lawyers will get paid and little will happen to the benefit of SF customers. God Bless America!