Consumer complaint received 2025-12-09 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Other features, terms, or problems — Add-on products and services
Company: JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.
State: NC

Complaint narrative:
In XX/XX/year> I used my Chase credit card to rent a vehicle from XXXX in XXXX. The rental agreement included a standard Damage Waiver / liability reduction product that is used in XXXX to cap the renters financial responsibility ( often called XXXX ). Under XXXX XXXX terms, this is a contractual limitation of liability routinely provided with the vehicle, not a separate U.S.-style collision XXXX policy. 

Without this liability reduction, I would have been personally responsible for the full replacement value of the vehicle if it was damaged or totaled. With it, my contractual liability was capped at XXXX. My XXXX auto policy does not provide any coverage outside the XXXX, its territories, or XXXX, so I had no other applicable insurance in XXXX. 

During the rental, the vehicle sustained front-right bumper damage in a private parking lot. XXXX charged me the XXXX damage excess under the contract. The total repair estimate from XXXX was XXXX, but my liability was limited to the XXXX excess, which I paid. 

I then filed a claim under the Auto Rental Collision Damage benefit associated with my Chase credit card. The benefit is marketed as providing collision damage coverage for rental cars when I pay with my card and do not have other applicable coverage. On XX/XX/year>, the claim was denied by XXXX  benefits XXXX ( XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX / XXXX ) on the grounds that I had accepted the rental agencys XXXX XXXX which they said voids the benefit. 

I appealed this decision in writing on XX/XX/year>. In my appeal I explained that, in XXXX, the Damage Waiver is a standard contractual liability limitation built into the rental structure, not a separately underwritten collision damage insurance product like in the XXXX. I also explained that : ( XXXX ) I had no primary auto coverage abroad, and ( XXXX ) by accepting the liability cap, I actually reduced the potential exposure of the credit card benefit XXXX from the full value of the vehicle down to the XXXX excess. 

After my appeal, I repeatedly called to request status updates. I was told several different and inconsistent timelines ( XXXX business days to reopen the case, plus another XXXX business days to review ), even after more than XXXX business days had already passed with no action. Eventually, the appeal was denied again for the same reason : that accepting the rental companys XXXX nullified the benefit. 

The way the XXXX is applying this exclusion effectively makes the card benefit impossible to use for international rentals in XXXX. In practice, a consumer must either ( a ) accept the standard local liability reduction product ( and then have the claim denied as XXXX accepted ), or ( b ) decline it and personally assume the entire replacement value of the car, with no primary auto coverage. Nowhere in XXXX benefit materials is it clearly disclosed that using the standard XXXX liability-limitation structure will void the advertised collision damage benefit. 

I believe this is unfair and misleading. The benefit is presented as providing collision damage coverage for international rentals when other insurance does not apply, but the XXXX applies XXXX exclusions in a way that makes the coverage practically unavailable in common XXXX rental situations. I complied with the terms as a reasonable consumer could understand them and acted prudently to limit risk, yet the benefit was denied.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation