Vehicle rental agreements.
Summary
Existing law governs contracts between vehicle rental companies and their customers. Existing law regulates an automobile renter's liability for loss due to theft, a rental company's loss of use, or damage or loss to a rental vehicle, a renter's credit card liability, the submission of insurance claims, damage waivers and damage waiver fees, and the notice to a renter regarding financial responsibility and optional damage waivers. This bill would, until January 1, 2014, require a rental company to accept service of process on behalf of a renter who resides out of this country for any claim related to harm, loss, or damage related to the use of the rental vehicle, if the rental company provides supplemental liability insurance coverage as part of, or associated with, the rental agreement. The bill would require that any plaintiff who elects to deliver process to the rental company pursuant to these provisions agree to limit his or her recovery against the renter or rental company to the limits of the protection provided by the insurance coverage. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1936 of the Civil Code, as proposed by SB 1192, to be operative only if SB 1192 and this bill are both enacted, each bill amends Section 1936 of the Civil Code, and this bill is enacted after SB 1192.
Bill status
vetoed
4 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2010
Committee Review
Aug 2010
Assembly Passage
May 2010
Senate Passage
Aug 2010
Vetoed
Sep 2010
Introduced Feb 18, 2010
Vetoed Sep 30, 2010
Floor votes · Senate Aug 31, 2010 · Assembly May 13, 2010
How they voted
22–10
Passed · 3 other
Total votes 35
Aug 31, 2010
D
Democratic23
91% Yea
R
Republican12
83% Nay
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
32
Key actions
8
Committee
8
Amendments
8
Sep 30, 2010
Vetoed
Vetoed by Governor.
lower
Aug 31, 2010
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (22-10-3)
senate
Aug 31, 2010
Lower · Passed
Senate amendments concurred in. To enrollment. (Ayes 48. Noes 26. Page 6962.)
lower
Aug 31, 2010
Introduced
In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.
lower
Aug 26, 2010
Upper · Passed
From committee: That the measure be returned with further amendments to the Senate floor for consideration. (Ayes 4. Noes 0.)
upper
Aug 23, 2010
Committee
From committee: Be re-referred to Com. on JUD. pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10. (Ayes 3. Noes 0.) Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
upper
Aug 23, 2010
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on RLS. pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10.
upper
Jun 29, 2010
Upper · Passed
Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading.
upper
Jun 28, 2010
Introduced
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 4. Noes 0.) (June 22).
upper
Jun 14, 2010
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on JUD.
upper
May 27, 2010
Committee
Referred to Com. on JUD.
upper
May 13, 2010
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (36-23-2)
assembly
Apr 22, 2010
Lower · Passed
Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.
lower
Apr 21, 2010
Introduced
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 3.) (April 13).
lower
Apr 5, 2010
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Mar 25, 2010
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.
lower
Mar 23, 2010
Lower · Passed
In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
lower
Mar 4, 2010
Committee
Referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Feb 19, 2010
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 21.
lower
0 primary · 1 co-sponsor
Sponsors
No sponsor information available.
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 2059
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 2059. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline