Case Study: Sage Rent-A-Car Incorporation

In the case against Sage Rent-A-Car the defendant filed a surety bond with the superintendent of insurance when it incorporated. Therefore, the court should dismiss the suit against Sage Rent-A-Car for failing to state a claim under rule NMRA 1-012B(6). Also under section 66-5-207(E) (1988) of the New Mexico Financial Responsibility Act states, “a motor vehicle approved as a self-insured by the superintendent of insurance is exempt from the act. Therefore, the defendant is not liable for any damages due to filing a surety bond with the New Mexico superintendent and for being self-insured. Lastly, under New Mexico case law Las Lumarias of the N.M Council v. Isengard, 92 N.M 297, 300-301 (Ct. App. 1978) the court held a motion to dismiss due to the plaintiff not being able to recover or be entitled to relief under any state of facts provided under the claim. As one can see under the statutes provided and case law the defendant Sage Rent-A-Car is not liable for damages per the New Mexico Financial Responsibility Act not constituting negligence due to Sage’s actions when

In the district court trial, the jury sided with the plaintiff and ruled that the St. Louis Hockey Club was vicariously liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. The trial court agreed with the plaintiff’s argument that as per the doctrine of respondeat superior, the defendant was liable for their employee’s negligent actions that led to the plaintiff’s injuries. As part of their

Jeffery Calkin, the defendant, leased a vehicle for our client, Sage Rent-A-Car Inc., and was involved in a car accident with the plaintiff, Jane White. A negligence suit was filed by Ms. White against Mr. Calkin and our client, Sage Rent-A-Car Inc. The suit claims that our client is required to carry insurance and therefore has a duty to assume responsibility for this accident under the provisions of the Mandatory Financial Responsibility Act (MFRA).

Brohawn, supra, 276 Md. at 399. Subsequently, the other party to the altercation filed an action against Brohawn seeking damages for intentional torts and negligence. Id. at 399-400. Transamerica, Brohawn’s insurer, refused to defend Brohawn on the grounds that her coverage contained a policy exclusion whereby Transamerica was not responsible for intentional conduct. Id. at 400. Thereafter, Transamerica initiated a declaratory judgment action, in the same court, seeking to have the court declare that Brohawn’s conduct was intentional, and, therefore, fell within the policy exclusion. Id. at 401. The circuit court dismissed the declaratory judgment action because “the question of coverage would be ‘determined by the jury’s verdict in the tort suits]. . . .” Id. at

David A. Goldmeier and Terry C. Goldmeier v. Allstate Insurance Company 337 F.3d 629 (6th Cir 2003) case supports our

On or about June 25, 2016, the Plaintiff’s automobile, a 2006 Lincoln LS, was stolen from her and burned to the point where the property damage to the automobile was determined to be a total loss. At the time, the Plaintiff was covered by an automobile insurance police with the

State Farm has asked whether it has a duty to defend the insured pursuant to the insured’s homeowners policy. It is our opinion that State Farm has no duty to defend the insured under the insured’s homeowners policy. The insured’s homeowners policy entitled the insured to a defense for “a suit brought against an insured for damages because of bodily injury or property damage to which this coverage applies, caused by an occurrence.” In this case, these elements initially triggering the insured’s homeowners policy are likely satisfied. Nevertheless, the SECTON II – Exclusions section provides that the liability coverage does not apply to any of the fifteen exclusions specifically enumerated therein.

Mr. Alvarado approached my client suddenly after running a red light. The negligence of your insured caused Ms. Tellez to collide into Mr. Alvardo’s left side of the door after Mr. Alvarado ran a red light. Ms. Tellez bags deployed, causing great damage to her car. See Photographs, attached as Exhibit A. The two-car collision occurred suddenly and without warning.

The defendant, Kingston High School, is negligent under the Ontario Occupants Liability Act against the plaintiff, Mary. The defendant failed to uphold a duty of care against the plaintiff, which resulted in general and special damages. The plaintiff is owed compensation for medical care and treatment expenses, the economic loss from failing to attend the remainder of the semester of business school, and a loss in prospective wages from future employment.

The Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging negligent entrustment, against the Defendant, Mr. Franklin. Pl.’s Compl. Count II, (Feb. 23, 2016). The Plaintiff alleged that, on the day of the accident Ms. Johnson was using Mr. Franklin’s vehicle with the knowledge and consent of Mr. Franklin. Pl.’s Compl. at 3 ¶ 7 (Feb. 23, 2016). The Plaintiff stated that on the day of the accident she overheard Ms. Johnson state to the police officer that she was driving her boyfriend’s vehicle, and assumed that he gave her permission to use the vehicle. Def.’s Interrog. No. 10 (Mar. 8, 2016).

Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendant breached its duty of care to her by: (1) “failing to fix a hazardous condition within a reasonable time;” (2) “failing to adequately warn plaintiff of a hazardous condition;” and (3) “otherwise failing to exercise reasonable and due care under the circumstances.” The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in the amount of two hundred thousand dollars, plus interest and costs.

Over the summer, I had the opportunity to work as a Management Trainee Intern at Enterprise Rent-A-Car at the home-city branch located in Kona. Enterprise Rent-A-Car is a management career, where each employee can advance from within. The branch office is on the second floor of the building and the rental cars are lined up on the ground floor, which made it easier for employees and customers to window shop from inside. Inside the office has tons of space for customers to rest and place their luggage(s), and the desks were hidden from sight behind a divider. Enterprise Rent-A-Car is a family business owned by the Taylor family. The Taylor family created a business that brought opportunity for all people, to build and grow a career, create friendships and leadership skills, and most importantly to have fun.

"[a]n insurance company has a duty to act in good faith in settling claims and a breach of that duty will give rise to a cause of action by the insured." Pasipanki v. Morton, 61 Ohio App. 3d 184, 185, 572 N.E.2d 234 (1990) (quoting Bean v. Metro. Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co., 9th Dist. No. 13543, 1988 Ohio App. LEXIS 4275, 1988 WL 114464 at *1 (Oct. 26, 1988)). Gekko did not act in good faith to settle Vic’s claim against Donna, and their failure to do so enables Donna has a cause of action against Gekko.

1. Analyze Enterprise’s Service Quality Survey. What information is it trying to gather? What are its research objectives?

The case study is about Enterprise Rent a Car, which initiated its business in the year 1957 at USA. The company slowly expanded its business and now they have more than 65000 workforce presented. The company is highly depending upon their workforce and to retain them longer, they use to give them training and development with passage of time. Hence, the company also do workforce planning for fulfilling future needs of the workforce.