B-162186, JAN. 7, 1970

B-162186, JAN. 7, 1970

MISCELLANEOUS--LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE TO RENTED VEHICLE DECISION TO SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE CONCERNING PROPOSED REVISION OF PARAGRAPH M4405, JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS. A MEMBER OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES WHO RENTED A VEHICLE FOR OFFICIAL BUSINESS AND WHO WAS REQUIRED TO PAY $100 FOR DAMAGES WHICH OCCURRED WITHOUT HIS NEGLIGENCE MAY BE REIMBURSED FOR DAMAGE IF HE DOES NOT HAVE INSURANCE FOR DAMAGE COVERAGE. IT IS NOT MATERIAL WHETHER THE MEMBER USES HIS OWN FUNDS FOR RENT OR A GOVERNMENT CREDIT CARD SO LONG AS HE IS AUTHORIZED TO RENT A VEHICLE ON A REIMBURSABLE BASIS. THE REGULATIONS MAY BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE REIMBURSEMENT TO THE MEMBER FOR PERSONAL FUNDS SPENT IN PAYING THE FIRST $100 OF DAMAGE SUSTAINED BY A VEHICLE RENTED IN PERFORMANCE OF DUTY WHETHER OR NOT THE DAMAGE WAS CAUSED BY THE MEMBER'S NEGLIGENCE, PROVIDED THE REGULATIONS SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDE COST OF COLLISION DAMAGE WAIVER ADJUSTMENT AS A REIMBURSABLE ITEM OF EXPENSE.

TO MR. SECRETARY:

THIS IS IN REPLY TO THE LETTER OF NOVEMBER 17, 1969, FROM THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE CONCERNING A PROPOSED REVISION OF PARAGRAPH M 4405 OF THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS. THE REQUEST HAS BEEN ASSIGNED PDTATAC NO. 69-43.

IN THE LETTER OF NOVEMBER 17, THE FACTS ARE SET FORTH AS FOLLOWS:

"IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS, &ARAGRAPH M 4405, A MEMBER MAY BE REIMBURSED UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE AMOUNT HE IS REQUIRED TO PAY FROM PERSONAL FUNDS FOR THE USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE WHICH HAS BEEN RENTED FOR USE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL BUSINESS. IN THIS CONNECTION, INSURANCE FOR DAMAGE TO THE RENTED VEHICLE IN EXCESS OF $100 IS NORMALLY INCLUDED IN THE RENTAL FEE. HOWEVER, MOST OF THE MAJOR AUTOMOBILE RENTAL COMPANIES CHARGE AN ADDITIONAL $1.50 PER DAY FOR WHAT IS CALLED A 'COLLISION DAMAGE WAIVER ADJUSTMENT,' WHICH IN EFFECT PROVIDES FULL INSURANCE COVERAGE, AND RELIEVES THE PURCHASER OF ANY LIABILITY FOR THE FIRST $100 OF DAMAGE WHICH MIGHT OCCUR TO THE VEHICLE AS A RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT.

"THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS DO NOT REQUIRE A MEMBER TO PURCHASE A COLLISION DAMAGE WAIVER ADJUSTMENT WHEN USING A RENTED CAR ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS. IF THE MEMBER PURCHASES SUCH A WAIVER, HE IS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT FOR ITS COST PURSUANT TO JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS PARAGRAPH M 4405. IT HAS BEEN PROPOSED THAT THIS PARAGRAPH BE REVISED TO DELETE THIS AUTHORITY BASED UPON THE PRINCIPLE ESTABLISHED IN 47 COMP. GEN. 145, AND BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL SAVINGS TO THE GOVERNMENT WHICH MIGHT RESULT IF SUCH A PROPOSAL IS ADOPTED. THIS REVISION WAS PROPOSED ON THE PREMISE THAT SINCE MOST INDIVIDUALS ROUTINELY ELECT TO PURCHASE $50 OR $100 DEDUCTIBLE TYPE INSURANCE FOR THEIR PRIVATELY OWNED AUTOMOBILES RATHER THAN FULL COVERAGE INSURANCE BECAUSE OF THE SAVINGS INVOLVED, THE GOVERNMENT WOULD REALIZE CONSIDERABLE SAVINGS PER YEAR BY ASSUMING THE SAME TYPE OF RISK IN CONNECTON WITH AUTOMOBILES RENTED FOR USE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL BUSINESS."

YOU STATE THAT APPARENTLY THE DECISION IN 47 COMP. GEN. 145 (1967)WAS PRIMARILY BASED UPON THE FACT THAT IN THAT CASE THE AUTOMOBILE RENTED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL BUSINESS WAS CLEARLY OBTAINED FOR THE GOVERNMENT'S ACCOUNT AND, IN ADDITION, THE VEHICLE WAS DAMAGED WITHOUT ANY NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT DRIVER. IN VIEW THEREOF, YOU HAVE DOUBT AS TO THE PROPRIETY OF THE PROPOSED REVISION AND REQUEST OUR DECISION ON THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

"A. IS THE PRINCIPLE ESTABLISHED IN 47 COMP. GEN. 145 APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF A MEMBER WHO RENTS A VEHICLE IN HIS OWN NAME FOR USE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL BUSINESS, PURSUANT TO OFFICIAL ORDERS, AND PAYS FOR THE USE OF SUCH VEHICLE WITH PERSONAL FUNDS FOR LATER REIMBURSEMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT?

"B. IF THE ANSWER TO A IS IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, MAY THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE FOR REIMBURSEMENT TO THE MEMBER FOR PERSONAL FUNDS SPENT IN PAYING THE FIRST $100 OF DAMAGE SUSTAINED BY A VEHICLE PROPERLY RENTED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL BUSINESS WHEN A COLLISION DAMAGE WAIVER ADJUSTMENT WAS NOT PURCHASED AND WHETHER OR NOT THE DAMAGE WAS CAUSED BY THE DRIVER'S NEGLIGENCE?"

REFERRING TO QUESTION "A," WE SEE NO REASON WHY THE PRINCIPLE SET FORTH IN 47 COMP. GEN. 145 (1967) SHOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO ONE WHO, WITH PROPER AUTHORITY, RENTS A VEHICLE IN HIS OWN NAME FOR USE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL BUSINESS. IN THAT CASE WE HELD THAT AN EMPLOYEE WHO INCIDENT TO OFFICIAL BUSINESS RENTED AN AUTOMOBILE BY USE OF A GOVERNMENT CREDIT CARD AND WHO WAS REQUIRED TO PAY $100 FOR DAMAGES TO THE VEHICLE WHICH OCCURRED WITHOUT NEGLIGENCE ON HIS PART COULD BE REIMBURSED ABSENT AN ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENT THAT HE PURCHASE A "COLLISION DAMAGE WAIVER." WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL IS PERFORMING OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT BUSINESS, IT WOULD NOT APPEAR TO BE MATERIAL WHETHER HE RENTS A CAR USING HIS OWN FUNDS OR A GOVERNMENT CREDIT CARD SO LONG AS HE IS AUTHORIZED TO RENT THE VEHICLE ON A REIMBURSABLE BASIS.

ACCORDINGLY QUESTION "A" IS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

AS TO QUESTION "B", IF, IN CONNECTION WITH CAR RENTALS, IT IS DETERMINED MORE ADVANTAGEOUS FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO ASSUME THE RISK OF LOSS COVERED BY A "COLLISION DAMAGE WAIVER ADJUSTMENT," THAN TO AUTHORIZE REIMBURSEMENT TO FEDERAL PERSONNEL FOR THE COST OF SUCH "WAIVER," WE PERCEIVE OF NO LEGAL OBJECTION TO AMENDING THE JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS TO PROVIDE FOR REIMBURSEMENT TO THE MEMBER FOR PERSONAL FUNDS SPENT IN PAYING THE FIRST $100 OF DAMAGE SUSTAINED BY A VEHICLE PROPERLY RENTED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL BUSINESS, WHETHER OR NOT THE DAMAGE WAS CAUSED BY THE MEMBER'S (DRIVER'S) NEGLIGENCE, PROVIDED THE REGULATIONS, AS AMENDED, SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDE THE COST OF A "COLLISION DAMAGE WAIVER ADJUSTMENT" AS A REIMBURSABLE ITEM OF EXPENSE. CF. 47 COMP. GEN. 145 (1967). WE SUGGEST THAT THE REGULATIONS ALSO PROVIDE FOR RECOUPMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT'S LOSS FROM THE PARTY NOT EMPLOYED BY THE GOVERNMENT WHEN SUCH LOSS IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO HIS NEGLIGENCE.

QUESTION "B" IS ANSWERED ACCORDINGLY.

ALSO, AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION, YOU ARE ADVISED THAT OUR DEFENSE DIVISION IS CURRENTLY CONSIDERING THE QUESTION OF WHETHER SUBSTANTIAL SAVINGS WOULD ACCRUE IF THE PERTINENT TRAVEL REGULATIONS WERE CHANGED TO SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDE THE PURCHASE OF EXTRA COLLISION INSURANCE (I.E. A "COLLISION DAMAGE WAIVER ADJUSTMENT)."