Hertz 2009 Annual Report Download - page 166

HERTZ GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
Note 10—Litigation and Guarantees
Legal Proceedings
From time to time we are a party to various legal proceedings. Other than with respect to the aggregate
claims for public liability and property damage pending against us, management does not believe that
any of the matters resolved, or pending against us, during 2009 are material to us and our subsidiaries
taken as a whole. While we have accrued a liability with respect to claims for public liability and property
damage of $277.8 million at December 31, 2009, management does not believe any of the other pending
matters described below are material. We have summarized below, for purposes of providing
background, various legal proceedings to which we were and/or are a party during 2009 or the period
after December 31, 2009 but before the filing of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. In addition to the
following, various other legal actions, claims and governmental inquiries and proceedings are pending
or may be instituted or asserted in the future against us and our subsidiaries.
1. Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation, or ‘‘HERC,’’ Loss Damage Waiver
On August 15, 2006, Davis Landscape, Ltd., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a complaint against Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation, or ‘‘HERC’’, in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. In November 2006, the complaint was
amended to add another plaintiff, Miguel V. Pro, and more claims. The Davis Landscape matter
purports to be a nationwide class action on behalf of all persons and business entities who
rented equipment from HERC and who paid a Loss Damage Waiver, or ‘‘LDW,’’, or an
Environmental Recovery Fee, or ‘‘ERF’’. The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment and
injunction prohibiting HERC from engaging in acts with respect to the LDW and ERF charges
that violate the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and claim that the charges violate the Uniform
Commercial Code. The plaintiffs also seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages
with the return of all LDW and ERF charges paid, attorneys’ fees and costs as well as other
damages. The court has granted class certification, denied our motion for summary judgment
and the case is in the discovery stage.
2. Concession Fee Recoveries
On October 13, 2006, Janet Sobel, Daniel Dugan, PhD. and Lydia Lee, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Hertz Corporation and Enterprise Rent-A-Car
Company, or ‘‘Enterprise’’, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.
The plaintiffs have agreed to not pursue claims against Enterprise for the time being and the
case has thus far only proceeded against Hertz. The Sobel case purports to be a nationwide
class action on behalf of all persons who rented cars from Hertz at airports in Nevada and were
separately charged airport concession recovery fees by Hertz as part of their rental charges.
The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, restitution of any
charges found to be improper and an injunction prohibiting Hertz from quoting or charging
those airport fees that are alleged not to be allowed by Nevada law. The complaint also seeks
attorneys’ fees and costs. Relevant documents were produced and depositions were taken.
The parties have each filed motions for summary judgment, and the motions are now before the
court awaiting a decision.
3. Telephone Consumer Protection Act
On May 3, 2007, Fun Services of Kansas City, Inc., individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons, v. Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation was commenced in
146