May it please you, Sir/Madam,
There are three points to my claim. First, I entered a business relationship with the Defendant, where I rented out my vehicle to Defendant for rental services. I innocently intended to generate income from the business relationship. Second, Defendant failed to ensure strict adherence to their policies and the safety of my vehicle. This failure resulted to my vehicle passing the U.S. border into Mexico, where it was impounded in unclear circumstances. Therefore, you should hold Defendant responsible in that regard. Third, Defendant’s failure to return my car and/or compensate me for my loss made me suffer damages- for which you should award me compensation for the damages.
How does these points fit together? As we look at the claim, what are the issues? Basically, I am talking about two things: Is the Defendant liable for the loss of my car and the subsequent harm I suffered as a result of the loss, and if so, am I entitled to compensatory damages for all I have suffered and continue to suffer?
First, let me talk about whether Defendant is liable. Defendant seeks to absolve itself from liability on the grounds that I chose a protection plan that does not allow for the refund for the loss of hosting income. Defendant also argues that there is no provision in the parties’ agreement that gave them the obligation to reimburse/compensate me for my losses.
I aver that Defendant is liable under the doctrine in equity, that equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy. It is doubtless that an equitable right existed pertaining my enjoyment of benefits under my business relationship with Turo. Notably, I had the right to benefit financially from renting my car to Turo, and the right to be compensated for any wrong done against me in the business relationship. In that regard, when I rented out my car to Defendant’s company, I reasonably expected the Defendant would abide by its policies and conduct due diligence to ensure my vehicle was safe and that I will get due payment for renting out my car. Defendant’s website provides that one can drive anywhere within the country where their trip originated. If a guest books a car in the US or Canada, he/she may drive across the US-Canadian border but may not drive into Mexico. Unfortunately, Defendants failed to adhere to its policy above by failing to diligently prevent my vehicle from being driven into Mexico and its subsequent loss. They also did not conduct sufficient background checks on the guest who took my vehicle to Mexico. I also maintain that the Defendant had a duty to react immediately and promptly when I gave them notice that my vehicle was not returned. Instead, they took a very long time to investigate the loss, and surprisingly, even asked me what to do next, as if I was the cause of the loss. It is doubtless that the loss of my vehicle was foreseeable and was preventable. Therefore, reasonably and objectively speaking, the Defendant should be held liable in light of the foregoing.
Next, let me talk whether I am entitled to the damages I claim. I must state that I find it unfair and/or unjust for the Defendant to ignore/assume the damages I incurred following the loss of my vehicle. I shall address this issue in two ways. Defendant cites the limitation of liability clause in their terms of service, which limits their liability for my losses and/or damages. I still refer to the said doctrine that equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy. Accordingly, my equitable right for a remedy cannot be limited by the clause Turo seek to use. In its policies and clauses, Turo has not mentioned anything about stolen cars and how they will be dealing in such situation.
Besides, Defendant claims that the policy I selected (Basic Protection Plan) does not include loss of hosting income. Defendant also argues that the guest will pay damages based on the plan she picked. It follows; according to their argument, it would be fine if the guest stole the car and then came back and paid the Defendant a little in damages because the guest had picked the top insurance policy. On the contrary, it is my argument that it should not be my concern to pick the highest insurance policy, which guarantees the payment of my loss of hosting income, if the Defendant tell their guests that they are not allowed to take the car to Mexico. Also, the Defendant should not relax its policies or fail to act diligently because their guest has picked the highest policy. Most notably, the Defendant never mentioned to me that the guest might take the car to Mexico. Had I known this before renting out my car, I would have done all due diligence to prevent the loss of my vehicle, including choosing the highest policy, or not contracting with the Defendant at all. It should be noted that I am not solely seeking damages for loss of my hosting income. The damages I seek include all losses and damages I suffered as a result of the loss of my car. I claimed compensatory damages of $10,000 because I thought this is the most I can ask for when an arbitration is going on. If I had an attorney, I could have asked for more compensation.
In my claim I have clearly outlined the damage/loss I suffered because of the loss of my vehicle. Notably, I had to stop my employment for the sake of following up on the car issue. I also lost the vehicle which I intended to buy considering my profession as a realtor, which requires me to move my clients around. Also, my fiancé flew into the U.S. and we needed to travel, which required a car. Because I had to travel and my car was lost, I borrowed a car from my friend and paid him. I do not have a receipt, but the friend said he will testify if needed. It is worth noting the emotional stress I underwent in my attempts to locate my car and get it back. Such are the losses which I seek damages for.
Finally, the Defendant claims that the amount they already paid is sufficient for my compensation. Notably, Turo argues that payment was sent to the lien holder, for $31,939.20 (to release title of the car), and payment was sent to me for $5,019.90, thus a total payment of $36,959.10. Accordingly, they paid around $37,000 for the car, which was my equity in the car. Contrary to Turo’s assertions about the market price of my vehicle, if I had gotten the car back and kept it, the market price would be between a lot more in the current market. From my statements above, it is clear the Defendant did not pay me any amount for my losses/damages.
I maintain that the Defendant should bear responsibility for their delay in addressing the matter. Had they expedited in solving the matter, I would not have been seeking the consequential damages in the said amount ($10,000). I would not have incurred unnecessary and unwanted losses for not having my car, including not being able to get to work easily, cancelled plans, and emotional distress, as already alleged. Therefore, Defendant has to compensate me for these losses, which occurred out of their negligent actions.
In conclusion, this is my chance to try the waters of justice and quench my thirst for redress of the loss I suffered as a result of the Defendant’s actions and/or inactions. I am therefore confident that you will determine this matter fairly and reasonably. Thank you!
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )