I'm sorry but does anyone else here feel that the renter in this situation is over-implying a HUGE amount of cover-up and backdoor shadiness on the part of both the rental branch and the glass repair place. In terms of kickbacks that are spoken of, couldn't that possibly mean simply a free day rental a month for prioritizing Enterprise's vehciles when they come in (i.e. move them to the front of the line so they can be repaired first). And to assume that the damage was so minimal to the windshield is to assume that the renter in this situation has worked in or around glass repair shops for quite sometime and can make that educated decision. Well, that, or simply the renter is trying to minimalize the need for replacement, to suit his interests, rather than err on the side of precaution by replacing the windshield to protect future renters. There are times when small cracks/chips can be fixed and times when they can't. The times they can't they are replaced for the safety of future renters or anyone driving the car. Not for the financial gain of the office, because, at the very least, having a windshield repaired takes 30 minutes, having it replaced takes upwards of two hours - which is definitely not good financially for an office screaming tight on cars. Does anyone here agree that the renter, may have simply damaged a car, and should pay for it? Just bad luck, not an overt conspiracy.