Hey Marriott, where are my wheels?


Rick Magill’s recent trip didn’t end well. When he and his wife returned to the Miami Airport Marriott Hotel to pick up their Infiniti from the “secure” parking lot, they found it was undrivable.

“All four wheels were missing and it was left on blocks,” he says.

Magill returned to the front desk to let them know about the problem.

Elliott Advocacy is underwritten by Insuremyrentalcar.com. An independent provider of low cost CDW/LDW insurance for use with rental cars. Up to $100,000 cover with no deductible. Policies available on a per day, per trip or per year basis. Also works with overseas rentals. Try  Insuremyrentalcar.comnow.

“They said they were fully aware of the situation, and that it had happened the first night my car was parked in their secure lot,” he says. “They also stated that they have no responsibility for what happens in their lot, but they had filed a police report.”

Magill disagrees. He thinks Marriott is liable for what happened on its lot, and he wants me to help him get it. We are both about to get a lesson in adhesion contracts.

Although the hotel’s parking liability isn’t disclosed on its website, Magill’s agreement is ironclad: Marriott isn’t liable for any damage to his vehicle. The site through which he booked the parking space, Simple Airport Parking, also has contract language that says it’s not responsible. He agreed to those terms simply by using the site.

His insurance company, State Farm, agreed to cover most of the damage, leaving him to pay a $500 deductible and 20 percent of any rental car costs. Infiniti sent an employee with a loaner car and four wheels. SimpleAirportParking.com refunded his parking fees and offered to pay for his next booking.

But Marriott?

“Marriott didn’t even offer me a drink or anything to eat during the three hours my wife and I were dealing with this ordeal in their lobby,” he recalls.

That’s a little unusual. An incident like this should attract the attention of a manager, someone with extensive training in the hospitality business. Although I wouldn’t expect a drink or meal voucher — or even an apology — any of those would have gone a long way to making the Magills a little less upset about their circumstances.

When the police arrived, he learned the truth. This wasn’t the first incident in Marriott’s “secure” parking lot.

“The police recommended the hotel add additional security,” he says.

Magill appealed to Marriott’s claims department, but was told that the property is located in “a bad neighborhood” and that per its adhesion contract, which he agrees to when he parks in its lot, the company is not responsible.

Would Marriott at least cover his $500 deductible, he asked. No, but it reimbursed the $38 for the meals and drinks while he waited in its lobby.

“I paid to park in a secure lot and feel that the Marriott Corporation should take some responsibility in this situation,” he says.

I agree with Magill. If it was obvious that the two companies involved, Miami Marriott and Simple Airport Parking, were unwilling to accept liability for theft in their “secured” parking lot, Magill might have reconsidered his purchase. He might have taken a taxi to the airport instead of driving his Infiniti. Using words like “secure” in describing its parking lot suggested that his car would be protected, and that if something happened to it, the hotel would be liable.

I contacted Marriott on his behalf. A representative called him back and promised to “see what she could do.” Then he got another call, repeating Marriott’s claim.

“She said they are not responsible for anything that happens to a car parked in their lot, and there is nothing else that can be done,” he says.

The damage to his Infiniti is pretty severe, by the way. The total repair bill came to more than $9,000.

“My gripe is that this has happened in their lot previously,” says Magill. “The police have told them they need better security and although no one can prove it, everyone feels that someone that works there is tipping off the thieves.”

Unfortunately, I’m moving this into the “case dismissed” file. It doesn’t belong there, but what choice do I have?

Should Marriott have honored Rick Magill's claim?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

184 thoughts on “Hey Marriott, where are my wheels?

  1. Unfortunately, Marriott is almost certainly in the right. The general rule is that if you park the car yourself, the lot owner is not responsible for any 3rd party damages. If by contrast, you give the keys to someone who parks the car for you, e.g. a valet, then they are responsible.

    The “adhesion” contract is just extra protection for Marriott.

    1. So if I park my car in spot 32 and the windows are all smashed, Mariott is not responsible, but if THEY park it there suddenly THEY are responsible? That may be the law, but it makes no sense. The damage occurred on their “watch” (property) and had nothing to do (in the practical sense) with who parked it.

      1. That is correct. The legal mumbo jumbo is that if I park the car, I contract is merely a license, i.e. I have permission to park. If they park the car (e.g. a valet), a bailment is created. That means that they’ve taken custody of the car and its their responsibility to return the car to me in the same condition that I gave it to them.

        It actually makes perfect sense but its definitely not intuitive.

        1. Then perhaps it should be illegal for Mariott to call their lot “secure”, when it obviously is not. Maybe a lawsuit for false advertising might go somewhere.

          In any case, let me permanently scratch that hotel off my list.

          1. Its not false advertising. Secure would be as “evil empress” described. It could be secure because of a fence, a live guard, whatever. That would meet the legal standard, unless there is a higher standard in the locale such that it would deceive potential customers.

    2. Every, and I mean every, valet ticket I have ever received when parking has the same “adhesion” contract details — if your car gets damaged while they have it, too bad.

      And the article does not mention who actually parked the vehicle in the lot.

      1. It implies that the LW parked the vehicle, because the went to their vehicle rather than saying the vehicle was brought to them, (or more accurately the valet returned empty handed)

    3. Adhesion contracts, ha ha. Airlines, cruise lines, hotel, rental cars, etc.; aren’t they all adhesion contracts?

    4. Legally, it’s a shame, but you’re probably correct. However, I think he could have pressed Marriott a little more, on the basis of its knowledge of past incidents. If Marriott’s knowledge of such happenings in the past could be established, that might be the basis for a claim based on gross negligence. Still, even that is probably barred under the contract of adhesion (damn, I hate those things!), but Marriott might have done something to avoid the bad publicity. Too bad, really,,,,

  2. Marriott is probably correct in terms of their legal liability. However, if they use the term “secure” then they need to provide some sort of definition of the term. I would think there is obvious evidence that the use the term secure when coupled with the actual wording of the contract amounts to at best deception and possibly fraud. Personally, I’d call the local DA’s office and check it out.

    1. Probably wouldn’t help to call the DA. As Mr Farrow wrote above, they have a disclaimer in the agreement.

      1. My suggestion to call the DA was not based on the contract, but on the fraudulent claim of “secure Parking.” Though,after reading @EvilEmpryss:disqus’s comment below, I suspect that will be their defense. Still, couldn’t hurt to file a complaint.

    2. I think that their definition of secure is that no one can drive the car off the lot without either presenting the ticket or showing ID and filling out a lost ticket claim (which gives the facility a chance to get the person on camera). Lazy criminals don’t want to work that hard: stripping a car and chucking the parts over a fence is simpler and clearly much less risk of getting caught.

      But hey, the car is still technically parked on their lot, so it is secure, right?

        1. Would it then be reasonable to expect (demand?) that they clarify what they mean by “secure”. It seems overly sloppy, especially for a Mariott property.

          1. So the site the OP used, Simple Airport Parking, allows the OP to park in a parking complex shared by several hotels with some spots rented by Simple Airport Parking. The fact that he parked near the Marriott is really a red herring, and Marriott didn’t really have anything in this case. They were trying to help the OP, and became the brunt of his problem. Also, the only reference to “Secure” on Simple Airport Parking’s site is in reference to their payment system, they never stated the car or lot was secure.

          2. I strongly disagree. Simple Airport Parking’s website has the word “Marriott” all over it.

            1. “Look for the Red and White Marriott Shuttle with the words “Marriott Miami Airport Campus”.
            2. Their video shows an entrance sign to the Marriott Residence Inn (no parking on the sign).
            3. “The Marriott Miami Airport Campus offers amazing convenience for travelers looking for secure, long-term parking …”
            4. Video instructs to drive to hotel entrance, where “valet attendants will assist you”.
            5. Video states that “hotel staff will assist you …”

            So the Marriott Miami footprint is all over the site and it’s instructions. And when you have hotel staff assisting with parking and the term “valet” invoked, the hotel is squarely in the parking issue crosshairs (IMO).

            Edited: and the site DOES imply that the PARKING is secure: “The Marriott Miami Airport Campus offers amazing convenience for travelers looking for secure, long-term parking near MIA”

          3. Dang, but you’re good! See http://youtu (dot) be/0EII6cGeuGg for the video. Marriott is ALL over this video.

            Video does make the place look pretty darn safe, doesn’t it?

          4. Thank you!

            Safe? No. Watch the video and you’ll see only trees around the parking area. To be “secure”, I would expect fences but it seems wide open. The compelling factor to me is that the video CLEARLY states that hotel staff will assist you in parking. Seems to me that as soon as Marriott employees are involved, the hotel incurs liability. But, Carver has indicated no liability (if I understood him correctly) on the hotel’s part, so I would defer to his expertise …

          5. Looked multiple times and cannot clearly see a fence. However if you Google “Miami-Airport-Marriott-73-airport-parking pictures”, you’ll see a picture that clearly shows a fence. So, it SHOULD be secure!!!!!!

            Edited: and it’s a GOOD fence. However, I can see that cars parked next to the perimeter might be vulnerable, so I would park as far into the interior as possible.

          6. You’re actually not far off. If there were any liability to be had, the presence of Marriott employees would make Marriott vicariously liable. (Disclaimer:I have not seen the video)

    3. The DA would probably hang up on you if not actually berate you. This is a purely civil matter. If you wanted to use “secure” to gain a civil advantage, you argument would be as follows: Marriott used the term secure when in reality it took no additional protections than any other similarly situated garage.

      But in reality, as long as Marriott showed some level of security, e.g. camera, restricted access, etc., Marriott is protected.

      1. The DA is elected, the office will not hang up on you. It can’t hurt to try, False advertising and fraud, are crimes. You never know what might be going on. Perhaps others have also been calling the DA, or they are concerned about the “string” of crimes, or the DA is up for election. You have nothing to lose

        1. I used to practice criminal law in my misspent youth. But in order

          1. You won’t speak to the DA, at best you’ll be speaking to a low level attorney, most likely an intake clerk. But in any case, I was speaking metaphorically, in that your complaint would go nowhere. Not even a prayer.

          2. This is not false advertising. Morals aside, Marriott’s advertising is spot on. Secure merely means exactly what evil express explained a few posts above. This doesn’t come close to false advertising or fraud. There isn’t even the hint of a crime here.

          If I, as an attorney, tried to suggest that Marriott was guilty of a crime, I’d be jeopardizing my bar license for presenting frivolous arguments.

          The reason I bring this up is that there seems to be a “let’s-get-law-enforcement” involved mentally that creeps up every now and then. Most often that’s an inappropriate response. In fact, law enforcement is specifically prohibited from getting involved in purely civil matters, except to prevent a breach of the peace.

          1. Actually it did, Dick. Everything he said was spot on except he didn’t answer your last point.

            “You have nothing to lose.”

            You have your time to lose, when you waste it.

          2. “I used to practice criminal law in my misspent youth.” But now, that you are older and wiser, you practice law-abiding law? That’s to be commended!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-Þ

          3. Thanks. The simple truth was that when the tech sector crashed, my best clients went bankrupt. I had clerked at this horrible criminal defense law firm prior to becoming an attorney . They needed a skilled researcher/writer so I consulted as an appellate attorney for a few years.

            Today, I’ll only do very light criminal work for business clients, e.g. arrange bail.

          4. Good for you Carver. My nephew is still stuck as a public defender in LA. He probably knows most the gangbangers by now. He should write a book 🙂

          5. Carver, your last paragraph is the reason I can’t stomach working for a small (2 to 5 attorneys) anymore. My last job was part time real property/title work so the cases had already been vetted and accepted by the title companies. I was laid off after five and a half years and I kept praying I wouldn’t be offered a job with a firm where people walk in off the street. I can’t handle taking the bottom feeder cases that are the bread and butter of most small firms.

            Since I have so much title experience, firms that sue mortgage companies because the clients are in foreclosure (based on made up tila and respa violations) were super interested in me. I’ve defended many of those cases and 97% of the time was out on demurrer. I feel for the people to a certain extent but they knowingly signed applications stating three times their income and now they want a free house, not a modification. Morally, I couldn’t do it… The crap cases that come in just make me feel dirty. Luckily, I was offered a job with a highly respected firm (5th largest in riverside or maybe it was even the county)… They get good cases because of their reputation. I breathed a huge sigh of relief.

          6. I hear you. I inherited a couple such low-rent clients, but my main practice today is working with early stage high tech startups. Engineers hate attorneys. But. since my background in is nuclear physics, the engineers don’t run for cover when I come by. They’re more likely to invite me to play Magic the Gathering. I’m blessed to love what I do.

            But low rent case can absolutely be a moral/ethical challenge

  3. This happened to a friend of mine a few years ago in a NJ “secured” hotel parking lot. The lot he picked had a gate with a guard, lighted parking lot, and cameras. It was a very reputable hotel that offered the long-term parking. He also found the lot through a third party site. He was in India for 3 weeks and came back early in the morning and found his car stolen.

    As he was trying to get things straight over the next few weeks, he found that several of the local lots had theft and break-in problems. He also discovered that the guard wasn’t contracted with the hotel, and got very upset when my friend contacted his employer (at the time the guard was working it as a side job, but in his company uniform).

    The local police were no help, even when he found data on the EZPass that tracked the time and dates of where his car was being used. In the end, he got the car back. My friend kept an amazing paper trail, got his money back for the rental he used to get home and the value of the items that were stolen. The idiot that stole it left receipts with credit card numbers on it in the back seat.

          1. I resigned on Friday. I haven’t really had a chance to reach out to all of my friends and explain what happened. But we have agreed to go our separate ways. That’s the Reader’s Digest version.

            By the way, I do have a friends-only email list that I send personal stuff like this to. Click on my personal website and wait for the pop-up, or I can add you directly to the list.

            To be honest, I am completely adrift. I don’t know what to do. I’m planning to spend the next month listening to the advice of friends, trying to figure out where to go from here. 🙁

          2. I’m so sorry to hear that. I know you had high hopes. I just clicked the “personal website” link in your post and tried to sign up. I kept getting a window saying that my email address wasn’t valid, even though I’ve been getting mail from you and Elliott.org at it for years. So yes, please add me directly to the list if possible. Again… sorry.

          3. So, I just subscribed. Is this situation going to be talked about in an upcoming email, or was this already sent? I signed up with Travelers United to help support your advocacy efforts and would like to know more about why the person I trust in that group isn’t part of that group anymore.

          4. Ehh don’t worry. You still have us crazy commenters.
            You have real travelers, lawyers, TAs, and hackers here.
            Now if we can only broaden the base a little bit 🙂

          5. I am so sorry … Network, keep posting, and keep a positive attitude…..Here’s to your new and awesome adventure….I know you will be ready when it presents itself 🙂

          6. Thanks for the offer. Yes, I’m spending the next month listening to the advice of my friends — people like you. I can add you to my friends email list too, where I’ll be mulling all of these ideas. I’d love to have your opinion, and if you can think of a way to help, I’d also welcome your participation.

          7. I suggest you tell us what you need from us.
            By this time we consider you a real friend (not just online).
            Thank you for making my life less boring.

          8. Thank you, and to all of you who have responded here, the feeling is mutual. I don’t know what I need. I don’t know what I’m going to do next.

            I thought I was going to help start a nonprofit organization that would help travelers, but it didn’t work out. I don’t know how anyone can help me right now.

            One thing I do know — I’m going to keep trying. I’m just not sure how …

          9. This is a STOP PRESS event.
            I wonder if a good tech guy (or even a lousy one like me) can put up a google groups site to discuss what we can do to support your NEW direction. I am not even sure why you need to be depressed at all. You have skills and passion, a great family, and us (your fan base).

          10. I echo Tony: tell us what you need. In the meantime, I’ll keep you in my prayers, corny as that may sound on a consumer advocacy website.

          11. In my opinion, you can keep on embellishing and improving your How to be the World’s Smartest Traveler BRAND.
            Because you have handled hundreds or maybe thousands of real-world travel problems in your blog, then you have a unique insight on how travel problems come to be and how they are resolved.
            That said, it could be the world’s leading site for travelers to learn how to avoid problems IF you can only organize it in a way that it is easy to read and search. I hope you realize that you are sitting on top of a some real good TRAVEL ADVICE information that just needs some organization. Just my real opinionated 2 cents.

          12. I’m sorry to hear you are going through career upheaval. You know you have many fans out here. I for one feel safer traveling, knowing that if I get screwed over somehow, I’ve got someone to turn to for help, or at least a straight answer as to whether I have any hope of getting un-screwed.

            Best of luck in whatever your next venture is. And you know I’ll be there to read (or watch) it.

          13. Can’t help but wonder if some of the reasons you walked away are the same ones that keep me from joining.

          14. If some guy can raise $40K on Kickstarter to make potato salad, surely Chris Elliott can crowdsource or otherwise obtain funding for his noble endeavours.

          15. I read about that and then started a campaign to raise $150 to make beer. I only raised $50 🙁

          16. I’m so sorry! Even if I don’t comment very often, I read your blog every day and feel like I know you and all the regular commenters and have learned so much. I ‘m a much smarter traveler now. I’d offer my help, but I don’t think there’s anything I could do. I’ll keep you in my prayers, along with Jeanne in NE. Good luck!

        1. I don’t know what to say. Despite of I had reduced my replies, I’m still reading it everyday, and this is one of my favorites sites/blogs.

        2. Gee, I’m really sorry to hear that. Yours is one of the very few travel related sites I read faithfully. I’ve learned a huge amount from you and many of the terrific regular commentators. Please try to keep things going if at all possible.

    1. I’m sure the thief wasn’t the most careful when removing the wheels and probably damaged the suspension or other mechanical parts under the car.

    2. There was most likely additional damage to the vehicle; I doubt the crooks were careful. Since replacing the tires and wheels on my Honda Si would cost me more than $3,000, that $9,000 might not be out of line if there was damage to the vehicle.

    3. My lowly Mazda 3 has alloy wheels that cost $500 per piece – so right there is $2,000.
      If he had performance tires or even run flat tires, that price could well be in the thousands.

    4. They probably damaged the car jacking it up to get the wheels off the ground. You can really screw things up when you place the jack in the wrong spot Hell they may have caved the oil pan

  4. I’d say that filing something in small claims, for the cost of the deductible and miscellaneous expenses, will certainly get someone’s attention at the hotel.

    Right now, they really have nothing to lose by blowing him off. There’s absolutely no downside to that.

    But, once someone actually has to show up in court, I’ll bet that they’ll change their tune, and will be eager to /now/ make the problem go away, the right way.

      1. You betcha, if there is an opportunity for subrogation, any auto insurer worth their salt will be on that. Def doesn’t hurt to give them a call. They’d get your deductible back too. (I think, but I can’t see why they wouldn’t.)

    1. I’m usually a big proponent of small claims court, but not this time. The hotel would simply send a manager level employee and would easily prevail.

  5. If the lot had previous break ins, he probably has a cause of action. If they are using the word “secure” in reference to their lot, they have a higher duty of care requirement than simply an open lot. Even with an adhesion contract, if they are not performing the higher duty of care, they would be in violation of the contract and thus liable.

  6. The word “secure” is being thrown out there as bait. The “contract” says that there is no security in the “secure” lot. False advertising? Bait and switch? Mere puffery? Who knows. I feel secure that Marriott is safe in court, and I am sure they are secure that they need not be moral. The word is becoming worthless .

    1. Read my comment about the Google Ads that I found and that is where ‘secure’ came from and it was referring to the online transactions being safe and secure not the parking facilities.

  7. Marriott owes them nothing, they leased him a square or rectangle of asphalt/concrete, not security, that’s why it’s called parking, and not security. The security guards, cameras, gates there if any are there to protect the property owners interests not the vehicle owner.

  8. Sorry this is a case where regardless of what the fine print taketh away, I think the business is at fault.

    The hotel advertises the lot as secure when past events show it to be anything but. This is a little bit like offering to store something in their “secure holding facility” and then dumping it in the middle of the ballroom. At a bare minimum, the hotel is guilty of false advertising.

    Yet another place not to do business with…

    1. Which business is at fault? Simple Airport Parking or the Marriott hotel? Which one does he have a contract with?

      1. My opinion? The business on the ad. For example from Chris’s former hometown …. Di$ney’s (just for you Raven) Magical Express service is actually run by two separate contractors. Bags Inc handles the baggage and Mears Transportation handles the coach. Regardless, I hold Disney responsible when something goes wrong. I don’t care who they sub the work too.

      2. I think that by advertising “secure”, that brings about additional liability which means that Rick Magill has a winnable case. I say sue both Simple Airport Parking and Marriott. If the parties don’t settle the case before it goes to trial, the judge can then decide who pays.

        1. Unfortunately, based on the article, a lawsuit against Marriott would be frivolous (not being pejorative, its a legal phrase). Marriott/Simple Airport have both law and contract on their side.

      3. That’s what confuses me about this case. Why are there two businesses? Does Simple Airport Parking rent space from the Marriott?

      4. I found three companies that is either renting space from the hotel or selling parking spaces for the hotel. Their prices are $ 10 cheaper than the hotel.

    2. What a difference a “d” makes. If only they say “secured”, that means there’s a gate or a guard (objective). If it’s “secure”, no “d”, then it implies your car is safe (subjective).

      1. Please refer to the comment that I posted. Secure was probably part of Safe & Secure referring to the transaction not the parking facility of the hotel. It was a Google Ad from a third-party airport parking reservation company.

  9. So if no one is responsible, what is Marriott selling? This guy could have parked on the street for free and gotten the same outcome.

    1. Marriott did NOT sold anything to the OP nor did the OP did business with Marriott. The OP did business with Simple Airport Parking which rented space from the parking lot owner (which we do not know who is the owner) and re-rented the space to the OP.

  10. Marriott’s contractual language doesn’t protect them from public shaming, does it? If the OP lives in the area, he could contact the local news people and have them run a story about this situation, especially since it happened to other people. About 10 years ago, there was a similar racket going on near Eppley (home airport in Omaha), news stories came out and suddenly an ongoing problem wasn’t ongoing.

    1. Y’know, that’s a great idea! These local news teams are always looking for a caught-in-the-act kind of story. This would be a great one! So-called “secure” parking that has a documented history of break-ins and blatant theft…the company won’t reimburse for the loss…I can see a local news team having fun with this one.

      Christopher, you should suggest that to the LW.

    2. Before we put the Marriott Miami Airport on trial in the court of public opinions, it is important to have the facts about ‘secure’ parking. Based upon my recent comment that I posted, I think that the OP saw a Google Ad from an airport parking lot reservation company that had the words “Safe & Secure Hotel Parking” and thought that it was referring to the parking facility. Safe & Secure refers to the transaction and Hotel Parking is the keyword in ad that the websiteinternet exploreretc. uses when you land a page, type in keywords, etc.

      What Marriott is guilty of is poor channel management…you don’t have partners competing in the same channel with a big difference in price. You don’t sell the product at $ 20 on your ‘website’ and lot your ‘partners’ to sell the product at $ 7.99 where the product is ‘delivered’ at the same location. You could have this pricing if the delivery methods were different (you pick up a product at a store versus it being hand delivered to you) and etc.

      Also, a good channel management is managing the ads, communications, etc. of your channel partners.

      1. The TripAdvisor review that the OP left had this response from the manager:

        “Dear Careless Navigator, I truly apologize about what happened to your vehicle. Please know that our guests’ safety and security are extremely important to us. We take precautions to ensure that. We have a monitored entrance gate and security officers patrolling the premise 24 hours a day. If we could undo what had happened we would. Unfortunately, vandalism can happen at any time at any location.
        Raul Ulloa
        Resident Manager”

        It’s true that vandalism can happen at any time at any location, but when there’s a pattern there (according to the local police according to the OP) something’s going on.

        1. I agree that there is probably a pattern of vandalism at this facility but that is not the claim or the argument that the OP used in his case with Marriott. He stated that the parking is ‘secure’; therefore, his car should have been secured. Then Chris use word ‘secure’ five times and ‘secured’ one time in the article.

          I discovered probably why that OP thought that the lot was secure because of Google Ads from third-party airport parking reservation companies. It wasn’t Marriott stating that the lot was ‘secure’ which most of the comments and the article suggested.

          If the OP used the argument of “this facility is the feeder lot for Midnight Auto Sales” or “has a high level of vandalism” then I think would have been a better argument to use than ‘secure’ lot.

          If the vandalism rate at the property is higher than the vandalism rate at the nearby parking facilities then Marriott should disclose to the public. If the rate is the same or lower, I don’t think that they need to disclose since it is disclosed on the ticket. At $ 7.00 per day, do you expect to have electrical fences, guard dogs, guards doing sentry around the lots, lasers; etc?

          I remember the first time that I attended a Chicago Cub baseball game. My father drove my mother’s car which had little or no value to criminals compared to his car.

          1. I took a look at this property on Google Maps. It’s part of a complex with a number of other motels, right on the edge of high density housing. I also looked at Simple Airport Parking’s website, which says: “We partner with hotel and off-site airport parking locations to offer their spaces to you at a serious discount over parking at the airport. You don’t need to be a guest at the hotel to book long-term parking there. ”

            I’m pretty conflicted – I really don’t see where Marriott comes into the picture here at all. It’s one of several places to stay in a big complex that gets sub-let to Simple Airport Parking.

          2. I reposted the post that was not posted (I think that it had a link…the company name is a website) that shows why the OP thought that the facility was ‘safe & secure’. Hopefully, my comments will be posted this time.

          3. I just came to the same conclusion. Why should Marriott by this person drinks or pay for vandalism?

          4. A lot of the times, the parking facilities for hotels in the downtown and airport areas are operated by a separate company (i.e. Central Parking System) and the ‘real estate’ is owned by a company that is not the hotel. It is likely that Marriott doesn’t even own the parking lot but their name is on it since they are the biggest tenantrenteruser.
            Marriott could not be the owner, directly or indirectly (a subsidiary or affiliatedrelated company) of this parking complex but they are taking all of the heat.

            IMHO, the criticism that was spewed upon Marriott should be on Simple Airport Parking which rented the space from the owner of the complex and rented that space to the OP.

      2. I was checking out flights on yahoo travel earlier today. American had a flight for $850, US Air was selling the same flight for $650. It took me a second to realize that it was the same flight.

  11. SO on my website I have a contract clause that anyone that I pay for a space to park a car for me, whether it be self park or valet, the party accepting my car shall be responsible for all damage and this contract takes precedence over any other agreement unless specifically waived by me in writing.

    Now do they have a contract of adhesion with me on my website agreement? Wouldn’t turnabout be fair play?

    I understand that everything cannot be prevented all of the time but it would seem that the hotel should do more since it advertised a secure lot.

    On another note, Marriott may not owe anything. It is just a brand on the building. The hotel is owned another entity and it may or may not be a Marriott managed hotel.

    1. No, because a contract of adhesion is one-sided. One party presents it, and the accepting party can take it or leave it. I’m going to do a separate post on contracts of adhesion.

      Good point that the property might not actually be owned and operated by Marriott.

  12. Marriott may be technically “in the right,” but has just shot itself in the pocketbook. Rick will tell everyone he knows not to use Marriott. Ethically, the Marriott should have done two things….Hire more security to prevent this from happening in the future, and reimbursing Rick for his losses despite the contract. Unfortunately, in this day and age, businesses turn their backs on both ethics and customers.

    1. WHY – he only parked there – he wasn’t even staying at the hotel. Our local casinos have “secure” parking, meaning you use a coupon to get in and out, but it CLEARLY shows they are not responsible for your car or its belongings. And I wouldn’t assume it should be!

    2. The problem is that Marriott is charging $ 17 (self-parking) and $ 20 (valet) but you can get the same parking between $ 5.50 to $ 8.00 from various parking lot reservation websites. This is really poor channel management in regards to pricing.
      I saw some Google Ads for these sites and they use ‘safe & secure’ in their ads which refer to the transactions but can be easily confused to be parking lot not the transaction.

    3. As I found out Marriott did NOT sold anything to the OP nor did the OP did business with Marriott. The OP did business with Simple Airport Parking which rented space from the parking lot owner (which we do not know who is the owner) and re-rented the space to the OP.

      1. See my detailed findings below. Simple Airport Parking’s video states that hotel staff will assist with parking. Now Marriott may or may not agree with that, but once they render assistance (“in writing”) they may be liable.

        And Carver agreed with that (the “may” part).

  13. I am very glad I spent $40 on wheel locks, though I don’t have an Infiniti, so my wheels and tires are much cheaper. I am confused between who he did business with, “Simple Airport Parking” or “Marriott”. I am sick of all these third party relationships. This is yet another reason I stopped using these crazy discount/simple/cheapo/we-will-save-you-money places. There is always a cost. There is a really cheap parking place by my airport, and a more expensive place. A quick Google search reveals cars are always stripped at the cheap place, Ill pay $2 extra a day to not have my car stripped. Both places state that they are not liable. Like usual, the cheap comes out expense.

    I looked at Infinitis once for fun, I was considering a G25x, I do not doubt that some of the wheel/tire packages cost $9,000. Some of the wheels alone, sans tires, were $2,000 each. Does anyone else think the OP has a drinking problem?

    ETA: I do want to believe Marriott or Simple Airport should be at fault here, or at least pay the deductible as a gesture of good will. Although I do think them refunding the fee, filing a police report, and offering him free future parking was pretty generous.

    ETA: After reviewing the site the OP used to book the space, I don’t think Marriott should be on the hook for anything, and am shocked they provided drinks to the OP. The site rents spots from Marriott or the Complex that manages Marriott’s shared parking lot, and then lest people park in those spots.

    1. FWIW, I always use the official airport parking even if it is inconvenient.
      Also, I have always thought everyone had an “airport” car.
      It’s the one you hope someone would steal because it is an eyesore 🙂

      1. I used to use the official airport parking when I traveled weekly as I could bill it out (depending on the client), and often do for personal travel because of the convenience unless its really long term ($23 a day here for airport garage). Never had an issue.

        My current employer requires me to use off-airport parking, and will only reimburse me off-airport parking. They only have me travel once or twice a year, but I would rather comply and get the reimbursement then pay extra and get no reimbursement, which is why I found the off-airport lot with no reported thefts.

        I no longer have an airport car. Sold the old car, so I can only take my new car, which is 6 years old, but still new in my mind.

        1. At SFO there is one parking facility that nobody but employees can access. Peace of mind. For short get aways we use it. For longer get aways, we use a park and fly package at an airport hotel. Yeara ago, a friend’s car was broken into there. The hotel covered it, so I am ok with using that location.

          1. The one that nobody gets near your car but employees? Skypark. I have used it a lot. You can find coupons on their website if you don’t have a TA.

          2. So very easy to use. You drive in, and get out of your car. They ask you when you will be returning, inside or outside parking (inside is more expensive). You hand them your keys, they give you a receipt, you board the shuttle bus that is right there, and within minutes they head out to the airport. On the receipt is a phone number you call upon arrival at SFO. When they bring you back to their facility, your car is out from the parking area, waiting for you. You go inside to pay and get your keys.

        2. I thought about this all day and I’m still shaking my head.
          Getting your wheels stolen is something you’d expect in a third world country. That just goes to show us how the mighty has fallen.

          1. Its actually really common in the US. Especially on cars like Infiniti’s or anything with “nice rims”. They get a very high price on the black market. Did you know that in Florida you can rent rims? Its sad. People will pay to rent fancy rims for their cars so they can go out and impress people.
            Also, stealing headlights is getting more common.

          2. I had my car stolen a few months after law school graduation. When the police recovered it, all the wheels were gone. They even took the light bulb, the one that comes on when you open your door.

          3. I had my car (1995 Acura Integra GS-R) stolen from in front of where I lived. Got a knock from the police at 1 AM asking if I knew where my car was. I thought it was across the street. They noticed it and ran the plates at a construction site where there had been thefts.

            Short story – it was found the next day abandoned. All the original aluminum alloy wheels were missing and it was left with 3 steel wheels with nearly bald tires, plus the compact spare. The instrument cluster and all the seats (including the driver side with a tear at a seam) were removed. The only thing missing from under the hood was the power steering pump, and they ripped the A/C line to get to it. They also rifled through the contents, but the only other thing taken was the lighter plug which had never been used; I’d pushed it in a few times before but I don’t smoke. Now they did leave behind a crisp new $5 bill. Not sure why they would take the lighter plug but not money.

  14. I live in the #1 “sue them” state, WV. The only way to interpret the word “secure” is to have a court support or condemn the Marriott’s and Simple Airport Parking’s use of the word secure in their so called contract. Just because these companies are standing behind their contract, does not mean that the contract is valid. I am surprised that McGill’s insurance company is not already testing this case with the extensive damage done in a secure lot. Sometimes Chris, I believe that you might recommend a lawyer, instead of placing cases into the dismissed file. Neither of us are lawyers, but once in awaile, there is a need for them.

  15. Marriott should not be allowed to call it “secure” parking. It should be made obvious that it is “park at your own risk”. Don’t they care about their reputation?

  16. Ah, Miami – America’s Johannesburg!

    Yelp could have been the OP’s friend here. Check to see what experiences other guests have had with the “secure” parking area before you go.

  17. Chris removed the first post so reposting without a link … but OP did already post this on Tripadvisor (and has a photo of the car on blocks)

  18. However, it’s a known greater than usual risk. Marriott should advice there is a greater risk and let the customer assume that greater than usual risk of theft.

  19. It doesn’t belong there? Do you have a list of parking lots where they parking lot owner IS responsible for damage (aside from valet parking)?
    Hotels do not have a lot of control over whether their property is in a high crime area. This is a function of the society that we’re in (or many Americans are in). Should the blame be on the hotel for this? How about the police? or the Mayor? You can go all around trying to point a finger, but the perpetrators of the crime are the actual ones responsible, and no one can find them. So that’s what car insurance is for. As to the deductible, that’s par for the course.

    It is frustrating and annoying when these things happen, but I don’t see how the shareholders of the Marriott Corporation should be paying for food and drink for someone who is contesting a contract that is not only crystal clear for this particular Marriott property but also the standard of pretty much every parking lot out there.

    As for the comment about it is a “known greater risk”, isn’t Miami a “known greater risk”?

    I’ve actually had car damage in a parking lot too. And it cost me more than it cost this guy. But I had to pay it, those are the rules.

  20. Someone should go after them for false advertising then. ‘Secured’ to me, means a peace of mind that no one will mess with it or steal it or from it. And with Marriot’s name on it, doubles that peace of mind. I feel this is FALSE ADVERTISING 100% and should be gone after in a small claims court at least.

    1. I agree IF the hotel has communications (i.e. e-mail, brochures, flyers, web pages, etc.) with ‘safety’ related words that imply that the vehicle will be secured and etc. I went to the websites of both parties in this case and found no ‘safety’ related words in the description of the parking facilities at the hotel. There could be a sign on a fence or wall that states ‘Secured Lot’ or etc.

    2. I went through the Simple Airport Parking booking process, they never mention Marriott. They simply say that they have rented spaces from various hotels, they they then let you park in those spaces at various hotels for a cheap price, and you make your payment via their secure on-line transaction system and don’t pay anything at the hotel.

  21. It has been over five years ago but I can recall reading a story, being told or seeing something on TV about using the word ‘safe’ in advertisement. The point is if you use ‘safe’ in ads then you are opening yourself up to lawsuits if something happens. It is very common for pre-school, daycare, private schools, charter schools, etc. to use ‘safe’ in their advertisement. If a business uses ‘safe environment’ in their advertisements without any disclosures (i.e. not responsible if a mentally deranged person comes on site shooting a gun) then they must provide a safe environment or they will be held responsible.

    My first question is “what sign, website, brochure or etc. had the word ‘secure'”? I went to the hotel’s website and I was unable to find the word ‘secure’ in regards to their parking facilities. By the way, the cost to park is $ 17 (self-park) and $ 20 (valet) per day…more about that later.

    I went to Simple Airport Parking’s website and again, I was unable to find the word ‘secure’ in the description of the parking facilities at the Marriott Miami Airport. The cost to park at the Marriott Miami Airport is $ 6.99 (self-park) and $ 7.99 (valet) per day.

    If the OP can provide a picture or printed communications with the words of “Safe Parking” or ‘Secured Parking” or etc. then I think that it is fair to jump on Marriott on not providing a secured parking facilities and providing compensation.

    If the OP can’t provide then I have doubts because every parking lot, parking garage, etc. for hotels and other businesses that I have parked out it has been very clear that they are not responsible for any damage, etc. I can’t recall any signs with ‘secured’, ‘safe’, ‘guarded’, etc. at the places that I have parked at.

    1. It could be a strong possibility that the OP got the word ‘secure’ from a Google Ad not the Marriott website.

      I went to Yelp and some Google Ads came up for the Marriott Miami Airport.

      One ad states ‘Safe & Secure Free Shuttle!” but when you goes to the website it states “Reservations made on AirportParkingReservations.com are safe and secure and guarantee your parking spot.”

      Another ad states “Safe & Secure Hotel Parking” (a new Google ad came up when I copy my screen).

      At first glance, when you look at these ads (which are not from Marriott Miami Airport), you think that Safe & Secure refers to the parking but it refers to the transactions. Hotel Parking and Free Shuttle! are bolded which means a new topic. By the way, Google Ads are good for a brand new site looking for customers but they are really expensive (a lead from Google Ads are 75% to 90% higher than the cost of a lead from other digital marketing methods) after the first year.

      Unless the OP can provide a picture on the Marriott property or written communications, I am guessing that the OP saw “Safe & Secure Hotel Parking” on a Google and assume that it was referring to parking at the hotel.

    2. It could be a strong possibility that the OP got the word ‘secure’ from a Google Ad not the Marriott website.

      I went to Yelp and some Google Ads came up for the Marriott Miami Airport.

      One ad states ‘Safe & Secure Free Shuttle!” but when you goes to the website it states “Reservations made on AirportParkingReservations(dot)com are safe and secure and guarantee your parking spot.”

      Another ad states “Safe & Secure Hotel Parking”.

      At first glance, when you look at these ads (which are not from Marriott Miami Airport), you think that Safe & Secure refers to the parking but it refers to the transactions. Hotel Parking and Free Shuttle! are bolded which means a new topic. By the way, Google Ads are good for a brand new site looking for customers but they are really expensive (a lead from Google Ads are 75% to 90% higher than the cost of a lead from other digital marketing methods) after the first year.

      Unless the OP can provide a picture on the Marriott property or written communications, I am guessing that the OP saw “Safe & Secure Hotel Parking” on a Google and assume that it was referring to parking at the hotel.

    3. I went through the site myself and the only thing secure was the payment system. I now wonder why the OP kept going up against Marriott. Simple Airport Parking states they rent spots form hotels, and let people park in them. They in no way make any reference to Marriott being responsible for anything. I used to have a parking spot down town, and when I wasn’t using it, I would let friends use it. If something happened to their car, first off I don’t think they would try to get me to pay for it, but I sure as heck don’t think they would ever go after the building where the parking spot happened to be located. Why on earth should Marriott buy the person drinks and food?

    4. I’m not sure if the word secure is that big of a deal. The question is, is there a specific promise that was made and broken. That would be the breach of contract case.

      The problem here is that secure is such a warm and fuzzy word with different people having different opinions on its means that it may not be a specific promise. By contrast, is the facility said, 24 hour guard, that’s a specific promise that’s capable of objective determination.

  22. It seems to me that the fact that they knew there was a safety issue and did not at least disclose it is part of the issue here. Certainly, if a person is attacked on your property and you know that there is a high risk of attack and don’t provide reasonable security mechanisms, you can be held liable for the attack. This is a bit different beaus of the contract, but not that much different. I think disclosure of this sort risk could be impliedly required.

  23. While speaking for myself, I know I probably speak for others, when thanking Mr. Carver Clark Farrow for his sharing his legal expertise on this and many other topics.

    I found his explanation of “license,” vs “ bailment,” very informative. How different are our
    concepts of legal, ethical, and just?

    Recently a restaurant I frequent changed their parking from valets to self-park. I liked it because I could lock the car and take the keys with me. I didn’t realize I also took the responsibility for any damage incurred while the vehicle was parked.

  24. The same thing hppened to us at the Charlotte Hyatt Airport. But our windows were smashed in. We had sayed there the night before due to an early flight and free parking. The shuttle driver told us that this happens there often. They have no security. It’s a pretty quiet area. But they called the police, and taped plastic up around the windows. Evenually, housekeeping came out to help get all of the glass up. No one apologized or offerred us some water, as it was super hot. I would like to stay there again, but I guess we won’t be.

  25. Insurance, which I know something about, is also a contract of adhesion. Because insurance companies determine the exact wording of a policy, the insured has little choice but to take it or leave it – that is, the insured must adhere to the contract drafted by the insurer. If a dispute arises between the insurer and the insured about the meaning of certain words or phrases, the insured and the insurer are not on an equal basis. The insured did not have any say in the policy wording. For that reason, if wording is ambiguous, a court will generally apply the interpretation that favors the insured.

    In my opinion, a reasonable person would assume “secure” means their car is protected from harm. Not just from being stolen, but from vandalism. Not completely safe, but that the business calling the parking “secure” has taken reasonable precautions. I know that is what I would think. It sounds not only that reasonable precautions were not taken, but Marriott is throwing up its hands and abdicating any kind of responsibility at all. “Sorry – high crime area, totally not our fault.” Well then, take that “secure” part out. Call it “risky parking.” At least then I’d know what I’m getting myself into. Or at least define “secure” for the customer so that there is no ambiguity.

    Is the word “secure” part of the contract with the customer? I will defer to Carver on that one, but I would think that it is.

    1. I went through the booking process on the same site, and the only reference to “Secure” was their payment system. Their website states that they acquire parking spots from hotels or other venues and rent them out. @Jeanne_in_NE:disqus found, and I also found on-line later that this a parking lot is actually a shared parking complex and used by more hotels than just the Marriott. The on-line company the OP used rents spaces and mails people pre-validated cards to exit the lot. I imagine they also rent from the same company that manages the shared parkign complex. I think the Hotel in this case is an innocent bystander as the OP never contracted with the hotel. It sounds like the hotel simply tried to help by filing a police report and are being punished for their good intentions. If the on-line company represenetd it as secure and safe aprkign, I do believe they should be responsible, but I couldn’t find that it was ever represented that way.

      1. I agree…I think that a lot of people ‘slandered’ or ‘persecuted’ the Marriott hotel without the facts. They took the OP’s word that Marriott advertised a ‘secure’ parking lot.

        Personally, I know that most companies like Marriott are smart enough and are business wise (there are always exceptions) to advertise a parking garagelotetc. as a secure, safe, etc. I know that Chris had a small group of volunteers and now he is an one-man show but 5 to 10 minutes of research would have found the stuff that I found today.

        1. The AP did not state that Marriott “advertised a ‘secure’ parking lot”. He said that in his follow up with Marriott they told him “They said they were fully aware of the situation, and that it had happened the first night my car was parked in their secure lot”

          1. Chris wrote “When he and his wife returned to the Miami Airport Marriott Hotel to pick up their Infiniti from the “secure” parking lot, they found it was undrivable.”

          2. Your statement was: “They took the OP’s word that Marriott advertised a ‘secure’ parking lot.” I am challenging (politely) that. Nowhere in Chris’ post did he quote the AP as stating that Marriott advertised a ‘secure’ parking lot. According to the AP, Marriott stated that only after he returned to the front desk. Did they then use the term “secure”? We have only the APs word to go by.

            I hope I’m not splitting hairs here, but “advertised” to me means “in advance”.

    2. The difficulty is that the word secure isn’t really a promise. As I mentioned earlier, if the lot made a specific promise, e.g video surveillance, electric fence, 24 hour guard on duty, those are capable of objective determination. What does secure mean, even interpreting in the light most favorable to the customer?

      1. How about Merriam-Webster? In line 2.b “free from risk of loss”. There are other definitions, but this is the one whose meaning best fits this scenario.

        I would suppose that in a courtroom, it would come down to “What would a reasonable person interpret ‘secure’ to mean?” As you said, it a bit subjective. But wouldn’t a reasonable expectation be not to have your wheels stolen, especially given the fenced-in parking?

        1. No. It would be extremely unreasonable. Think about it this way. If you have a locked fence surrounding your house, do you lock your front door. Of course you do. Common experience tells you that precautionary measures are a deterrent to theft, but it does guarantee that no thief will get pass it.

          Perhaps if the lot advertised that they had armed guards, guard dogs, and electric fence, video surveillance, and a sniper or two, then that expectation might be reasonable. But a simple fence?

          Fences can be cut, jumped over, locks picked, etc. They can be bypassed by a minimally in shape teenager.

          I’ll take an example from the internet. Your bank uses a secure connection for its internet banking. Yes, banks get hacked. The bank isn’t liable for fraud as long as the bank takes those security measures that are common for one advertising secured internet banking.

          1. In order to make their website claim valid, Simple Airport Parking would be required to explain what constitutes a secure parking lot. In the parking context, there are three things from which vehicles can be secured: “acts of God” (hail, fallen trees, etc.), theft, and vandalism.

            The lot is not covered, so Simple Airport Parking (SAP) would not have meant “acts of God”. And, as you indicated and is proven on Marriott’s web site, there is only a fence to stop theft and vandalism (no guards, dogs, or cameras), so I submit to you that SAP is making a false claim. The lot is in fact, by any measure of the term, not secure as it does NOTHING (literally) to inhibit or prohibit damage or theft. Add to that Marriott’s statement that they “they were fully aware of the situation, and that it had happened the first night my car was parked in their secure lot” (if indeed that’s a direct quote) and it seems clear to me that he has a case.

            Their “secure parking” claim is the compelling issue for me …

            Edited: BTW, the SAP video reveals quite clearly that anyone could just walk through the “gated” entryway.

          2. Except that’s not how a legal argument is constructed. The key legal concepts is the LWs knowledge, i.e. notice, both actual and constructive.

            The question is what does the term “secure” mean in context with a parking garage in the locale. There are two controlling issues: One, what is disclosed to the LW and what does the term mean within the locale.

            Actual Notice
            The LW can see the level of security. How tall is the fence? does it say electrified? Are there armed guards visible. These things are known to the LW upon arrival.

            Constructive Notice
            What is common with the locale. What is the industry usage of the term secure. I suspect that controlled access is sufficient to justify the term secure.

            Here in sunny California, and I suspect in parts of Florida as well, we have parking lots that have neither fences, attendants nor controlled access. When I park for court, the closest lot merely has numbers on the parking spots and you use a machine to get a pass that you put on your dashboard. You come and go with abandon. Anyone can literally walk into the lot. The lot doesn’t even have an attendant. That’s fairly common here.

            Thus, for us, a lot with a fence, controlled access and an attendant is secure by comparison

            And like I stated, merely because something is secure, doesn’t mean it doesn’t get robbed, e.g. a bank.

  26. Happened to me in 1982, Hyatt Regency Crystal City VA. Car was stolen Sunday, towed by DC Police on Wednesday, reported missing to Arlington police on Friday, and it took almost 3 weeks for the two police departments to figure this all out. In my case, the car was parked outside of the garage by their valet parking service. I turned it over to my insurance company, I don’t know if they collected from the hotel.

  27. BTW, Chris I’ve saved the YouTube video offline in case it or the parking site one “changes”.

    Also the Simple Parking site, and the Marriott website and image showing the parking lot, just in case.

  28. In Brazil, by law the parking facility is responsible for car damages, even if they states in their adhesion contract and/or in signs they aren’t, even in a free parking lot.

  29. This is definitely an OMG story! I park at SFO hotels all the time, but I wouldn’t park at some other airport hotels in what I consider sub-standard neighborhoods. I’ve always wondered about that “we’re not responsible” fine print and now I know. Up until a year ago, I didn’t carry physical damage insurance on my old truck and I would not expect a hotel to make me whole, but Marriott should pay his deductible and OOP costs, that’s for sure. Someone needs to start a campaign to get the owners of a “secure hotel parking lot” to take some responsibility. It’s quite a ridiculous situation. Sounds like a project for … hey – I know just the person – Chris Elliott.

    1. When I stayed in the Miami area years ago, I specifically researched the neighborhoods where I might be staying. I ended up staying at a hotel that was near the airport, but otherwise a mostly low-crime residential community.

      Still – the parking was included and I was driving an unassuming rental. If I had a nicer car, it could have been a target for theives.

  30. At the hotel I work at, the hotel is still not liable for damage done to a guest’s vehicle, even if it is valeted, unless it can be proven that an employee was responsible for the damage. Example, the cars are parked in an attached parking garage that is not owned by the hotel, but is patrolled by a security company that is not employed by the hotel. If a valeted vehicle is broken into, the claim ticket given to the guest still clearly states that the hotel is not liable for any damage or theft to it. However, most of the time, out of good faith, the hotel will consider waiving valet parking charges to help ease the cost, let’s say, of a broken window on the vehicle, even though it does not have to.

    1. I agree with what Chris said in that, Marriott could have done a bit more in the way of customer service to assist the guest, even if it’s policy is to not be held liable for the theft & damage. Good customer service goes a long way. I’m just a regular employee where I am at, but I have gone out of my way for guests (both whom have valeted and self-parked) that had their vehicles broken into. In the hospitality industry, you have to realize that the guest, or anyone for that matter, is likely already out of their comfortable element by being in a different city, away from home, and not aware of who to contact for help in situations like this. As a local, and as a good employee with compassion, we can assist, at least in some ways. I’ve stayed with guests, waiting while police arrived, provided printout copies of web pages listing good, local glass repair companies that will come to the hotel, provided a plastic bag to cover the window in case of rain, and even helped vacuum broken glass up. If we can’t do anything more, things like that are the least we should be doing for our guests.

    1. Might deter the casual thief, but most people keep the wheel locks inside the car if they ever need to take off a wheel to replace it with the spare. It might take a thief time to find it though.

      I’ve had my car stolen before. It was found with all the wheels gone and abandoned with the compact spare and three bald tires on steel wheels. I had wheel locks, and the thieves had located it after rifling through the inside.

  31. Does the fact that the parking is run by “S imple A irport P arking” mean that anyone who leaves their car there is a sap? Just a thought….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: