But since it's referred to as "loss of use" doesn't that imply that the payment from insurance company is for not being able to use your vehicle, and not necessarily for the rental of a replacement value? Isn''t that why insurance won't cover rentals that are much more expensive that the injured's vehicle (i.e. rental has to be equivalent has to the vehicle that was damaged and anything more expensive must has to be paid for by the injured party).
Asker
Posted almost 14 years ago.
But since it's referred to as "loss of use" doesn't that imply that the payment from insurance company is for not being able to use your vehicle, and not necessarily for the rental of a replacement value? Isn''t that why insurance won't cover rentals that are much more expensive that the injured's vehicle (i.e. rental has to be equivalent has to the vehicle that was damaged and anything more expensive must has to be paid for by the injured party).