Sixt Rent-A-Car Under Fire for Allegedly Overcharging for Supplemental Insurance, Keeping Profits

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

Sixt Rent-A-Car faces a proposed class action lawsuit that claims the company has overcharged renters for supplemental liability insurance policies and pocketed the profits.

Want to stay in the loop on class actions that matter to you? Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.

The 15-page lawsuit out of Florida says that Sixt obtains supplemental liability excess (SLI) policies from outside insurers at a fraction of the price it charges individual renters, and creates the illusion that the corresponding insurance fees are passed straight through to the third-party insurance company. The defendant’s “systematic pattern” of misrepresenting the cost of SLI policies is intended to “defraud consumers and increase revenues,” the suit contends.

“The premiums paid by renters to Sixt and not remitted to the carriers constitute an undisclosed profit for Sixt,” the filing summarizes.

According to the case, Sixt presents its SLI policy as a separate insurance product, provided by third-party insurance companies, that renters may purchase on top of a daily rental rate, plus car and sales tax. The defendant is careful to distinguish between its typical fees and the SLI charge, the complaint claims.

For example, the SLI policy brochure given to customers explains that the insurance is provided by third-party companies who would cover the renter in the event of loss or damage, not Sixt, the filing says. Moreover, the SLI policy charge is listed as a distinct line item with a separate price on rental contracts and invoices and is exempt from tax, implying that it is not a charge related to vehicle rental, the lawsuit relays.

In short, “[t]here is no indication that Sixt would retain a significant portion of the premiums paid for the SLI [policy],” the suit adds.

Reasonable consumers are led to believe based on the defendant’s representations that the SLI policy rate they paid is passed directly to the outside insurance company and not pocketed as profit by Sixt, the case charges.

Per the complaint, the Florida-based plaintiff rented a Sixt vehicle in Denver between April 12 and 14, 2019 for a total of $130.73, and later rented another vehicle in San Francisco between May 2 and 5 of that year for a total of $126.50. When making both reservations, the plaintiff purchased an SLI policy from Sixt and assumed the associated charges would pass directly to the third-party insurer, the filing claims.

In truth, Sixt paid the insurance company only a small fraction of what the plaintiff was charged for coverage on the rentals, and the man did not learn until October 2021 that he had been “defrauded” by the defendant, the case contends.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who rented a vehicle from Sixt, who purchased SLI coverage sold at the rental counter price, and who are not subject to arbitration, or whose rental contracts did not include an arbitration provision.

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.