Yeah, those “loss of use” fees are sneaky. I always wonder if the extra insurance is really worth it, though. Like, are the odds of something happening that high? But then again, Montana does seem like a wild card with all the wildlife. Guess it’s better to be safe than sorry, even if it feels like overkill sometimes.
I get where you’re coming from, but honestly, I’ve rented cars all over and never had an issue—until last year in Montana. Swerved to avoid a deer, ended up with a busted bumper. My regular insurance covered most of it, but the rental company still hit me with some weird fees. Made me rethink skipping the extra coverage, even though it always feels like a ripoff. Sometimes you just get unlucky, I guess.
Extra Insurance Feels Like a Scam, But…
“My regular insurance covered most of it, but the rental company still hit me with some weird fees. Made me rethink skipping the extra coverage, even though it always feels like a ripoff.”
I totally get that feeling—every time I’m at the counter and they start rattling off all the extra coverage options, I’m just thinking, “Is this really necessary, or are they just trying to squeeze more money out of me?” But then you hear stories like yours and it makes you wonder if you’re playing with fire by skipping it.
Here’s the thing that bugs me: even if your own insurance covers the damage, rental companies seem to find ways to tack on “loss of use” or “diminished value” fees that your regular policy might not touch. That’s the part that feels shady. Like, you pay for insurance, but then there’s this whole other layer of stuff you’re still on the hook for. I had a friend who got dinged for “admin fees” after a fender bender in Colorado—nothing major, but it was still a couple hundred bucks out of pocket.
I guess what I’m saying is, I’m not convinced the extra coverage is always worth it, but I do get why people go for it, especially in places like Montana where wildlife is everywhere and roads can get sketchy. I’ve never actually bought the extra insurance myself, but every time I drive through rural areas or national parks, I start second-guessing that decision. Maybe it’s just luck so far.
It’s kind of wild how much of this comes down to chance. You can be the safest driver out there and still end up with a busted bumper because a deer decides to play chicken with your rental car. Makes me wonder if there’s a better way to handle this stuff—like, why can’t rental companies just be more upfront about what’s actually covered and what isn’t? The fine print is always a nightmare.
Anyway, I’m still on the fence about paying extra for coverage. Feels like a gamble either way.
“even if your own insurance covers the damage, rental companies seem to find ways to tack on ‘loss of use’ or ‘diminished value’ fees that your regular policy might not touch. That’s the part that feels shady.”
You nailed it with that. I’ve seen folks get blindsided by those “loss of use” charges—sometimes it’s not even about the damage, it’s just the car being out of commission for a couple days. It does feel like a bit of a trap. Honestly, in places like Montana where wildlife is unpredictable, the extra coverage can sometimes save you a headache, but I get why it feels like a gamble. There’s no perfect answer, just depends how much risk you’re willing to take on.
Had a run-in with this exact thing last year, actually. Rented a car in Bozeman for a weekend trip, and wouldn’t you know it—a deer darted out at dusk. Barely clipped the bumper, but the rental place still charged me for “loss of use” while it sat in their shop. My regular insurance covered the repair, but those extra fees? Out of pocket. Felt like getting nickel-and-dimed for something totally out of my control.
I used to think the extra coverage was a straight-up money grab, but after that headache, I’m not so sure anymore. It’s not just about the damage—it’s all those sneaky fees they tack on. Still feels a bit unfair, but I guess it comes down to how much hassle you’re willing to risk. Montana roads can be wild, literally and figuratively...