Retired couple hit with $7K car rental fine from Enterprise over bogus diesel claim
A retired couple from Kelowna, British Columbia, says a rental car dispute left them facing a costly and stressful ordeal after being accused—without what they argue was proof—of damaging a vehicle by using the wrong type of fuel.
Kelly and Katherine Graves rented a 2025 Dodge Durango through National Car Rental, part of Enterprise, during a trip in April 2025. According to their account, the trip went smoothly, and before returning the SUV to Edmonton International Airport, they stopped at a 7-Eleven roughly 35 miles away to refuel. They spent about $44 on gasoline and drove the vehicle back to the airport without any mechanical issues.
About a week after returning the car, the couple says they were contacted by the rental company and told the SUV would not start. They were informed that diesel fuel had been found in the engine and were instructed to either file an insurance claim or pay for the repairs themselves.
The Graves immediately disputed the accusation, both during that initial call and in a follow-up conversation a few days later. After that, they say communication stopped for months. Then, nine months later, they received a letter demanding $9,500 Canadian dollars—roughly $7,000 U.S.
Kelly Graves said the long silence led him to believe the matter had been resolved. Instead, the sudden demand added to their frustration, especially since they maintain the company never produced clear evidence that diesel fuel had been used.
To support their position, the couple kept documentation from their refueling stop. They had two receipts from the 7-Eleven purchase, recorded just minutes apart, showing they bought about 12.5 gallons of gasoline. They also obtained a photo of the exact pump they used, which they say does not even offer diesel fuel.
They further noted that the Dodge Durango they rented is equipped with a capless fuel system designed to prevent incorrect fueling, since diesel nozzles are typically larger and incompatible with gasoline systems. Additionally, they emphasized that the vehicle drove normally for the entire 35-mile trip back to the airport after refueling, with no signs of trouble.
Their lawyer, Abu Khurana, argued that companies should not demand large sums without presenting solid proof. He said customers are often put in a difficult position when large corporations issue significant charges with limited explanation.
The situation dragged on for nearly a year, taking a toll on the couple. Kelly described losing sleep over the possibility of a major financial hit after decades of saving for retirement.
Eventually, after the couple sought legal help and media attention, Enterprise dropped the claim. In a statement, the company said it had conducted a thorough review, including internal records and customer-provided information. It also stated that a diagnostic assessment indicated fuel contamination occurred during the rental period and caused serious damage.
However, the company acknowledged it could not confirm details about where or how the fueling happened due to the time that had passed. On that basis, it chose to close the case and informed the couple of its decision.
Enterprise did not clarify why the claim was pursued for so long or why the couple’s documentation did not resolve the matter sooner.
The Graves say their experience highlights the importance of keeping receipts and records. They also indicated they plan to use a different rental provider in the future and hope others can avoid going through a similar situation.
About Post Author
