The situation here, as in the above cases, is one where the parties hold reasonable differences of opinion on the interpretation of a statute and legitimately disagree as to what section 6-305 permits. It is not a case where the statute has been construed to prohibit such fees and defendant nonetheless continued to charge them, or a case where the statute expressly prohibits the fees. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court properly dismissed plaintiff's complaint. The new section basically deletes the liability cap. Now, the renter is liable for actual damages to the vehicle or the fair market value of the vehicle, whichever is less.
Authorized drivers do have a cap on their liability but it is significantly increased.
Additionally, the legislature has promulgated a new act that also relates to rental liability. It is entitled the Renter's Financial Responsibility and Protection Act.