Grp., Inc. v. Garamendi, 114 Cal.App.4th 846, 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 912, 916 (2003). Boeing’s contractual promise to pay its employees a portion of their usual salary if a medical problem rendered them unable to work fits this definition, for by offering a self-funded STD plan, Boeing (1) shifted risk of financial loss due to injury from employees to itself and (2) spread that risk over its workforce. See Selmon v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 372 Ark. 420, 277 S.W.3d 196, 202 (2008) (characterizing a self-funded LTD plan as a “risk-pooling agreement”); Julie K. Swedback, der Jellins that an optional provision of a used car loan that shifted some risk from the buyer to the seller was not “insurance”); see also Truta v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 193 Cal.App.3d 802, 238 Cal.Rptr. 806, 814 (1987) (<HOLDING>). Here, by contrast, the principal purpose of
holding car lessee specifically contracted with car lessor for liability for any and all loss or damage to rental car thus barring recovery from insurer under exclusion for liability assumed by contract holding that even a driver not listed as an authorized driver for a rental car could nevertheless have an expectation of privacy if given permission to use the car by an authorized driver holding in response to a commerce clause challenge that a city that operated an airport was acting as a participant in the market for airport rental car services holding that one plaintiff bringing negligence and wantonness claim against car rental company for failing to remove rental car from stolen car list could not recover mental anguish damages because he was never at risk of physical harm but that fact question existed as to whether other plaintiff was at risk of physical harm when police pulled weapon on him holding under jellins that a tangential risk allocation provision did not make a rental car contract insurance because its principal object and purpose remained the rental of an automobile