Truta v. Avis Rent a Car System, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the collision damage waiver provision in an automobile rental contract did not constitute insurance because the principal object and purpose of the contract was automobile rental
• holding that the collision damage waiver provision in an automobile rental contract did not constitute insurance because the principal object and purpose of the contract was automobile rental
• holding under Jellins that a “tangential risk allocation provision” did not make a rental car contract “insurance” because its “principal object and purpose” remained “the rental of an automobile”
• location of warranty disclaimer on the back went to procedural unconscionability

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).