FlyerTalk Forums - View Single Post - SAVE UBER in Illinois!!!!!
View Single Post
Old Oct 6, 2014 | 4:19 pm
  #22  
TWA884
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist
30 Countries Visited
2M
All eyes on you!
15 Years on Site
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: oneword Emerald
Posts: 24,750
Originally Posted by SkiAdcock
Genuine question - is the liability insurance for Uber actually different when they're not carrying passengers from when they are, & if it's different for when they're not carrying passengers, if there are no passengers in the car does it matter?
The insurance is different:
WHY THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY IS TAKING AIM AT UBER AND LYFT

But complicating things is the fact that Uber and Lyft offer two different insurance systems--one for when passengers are in the car, and another for when drivers are picking passengers up or looking for hails. During that time, as the infographic below illustrates, insurance coverage is far lower. Drivers are only covered for $50,000 injury, $100,000 injury total, and $25,000 in property damage. This means that when not driving customers, UberX drivers are primarily covered by their personal insurance--which can vary wildly depending on the state, municipality, and individual driver. Lyft’s insurance is similar as well.

Otherwise, both UberX and Lyft rely on the driver’s regular personal insurance.
States warn consumers about possible insurance gaps with rideshare companies

“From the time a driver accepts a trip request through our app until the completion of the ride, our partners have $1 million of coverage for driver liability,” read the statement. “We were also the first ridesharing request service to include $1 million of coverage for uninsured/underinsured motorists, meaning that passengers and drivers are also covered for injuries when another party is at fault and lacks sufficient insurance.”
This is why it matters:
Uber denies fault in S.F. crash that killed girl

Attorneys for Uber said the ride-sharing company was not liable for the New Year's Eve death of 6-year-old Sofia Liu in San Francisco, because the driver was an independent contractor and had no reason to be actively engaged with the app at the time.

<snip>

Uber's response, filed Thursday, said Muzaffar was "never an employee, agent, joint venture or partner of Uber." Attorneys said he had, however, passed a background check. Moreover, they said he had not been carrying a fare, heading to pick up a fare or responding to a request to pick up a fare - and thus had no reason to be interacting with his smartphone.

"The only information displayed on the screen was a GPS-generated map with his location - akin to the information displayed by a smartphone map application," lawyers wrote.

Uber's attorneys also claimed that Uber should not be held responsible because the company primarily provides services and not products.

<snip>
A conventional taxi driver would be covered by a commercial $1 million liability policy 24/7/365 regardless of whether he or she were carrying a fare.

California recently enacted new insurance regulations for rideshare drivers, but those still fall short of what's required of taxi drivers.
California governor signs ridesharing insurance legislation

The law requires ridesharing companies' insurance to cover drivers from the moment they turn on their app, not just from when they accept a ride on their app, according to information from the office of California Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla, who championed the bill.

Drivers under the new law must maintain primary liability insurance coverage of at least $50,000 per person and $100,000 per occurrence for death and personal injury during the time they log on to the application, as well as $30,000 for property damage, her office said. The insurance can be paid by the driver or the rideshare company.

An earlier version of the bill required $750,000 worth of insurance coverage in that window, down from $1 million in the previous draft, it said.

The move to dictate more extensive coverage stems from a New Year's Eve incident in San Francisco when an UberX driver killed a child while his app was on, but before he had accepted a ride.

<snip>

The companies, which initially opposed stricter requirements, ultimately supported the final bill after Bonilla agreed to lower the amount of insurance required when drivers do not have passengers in their vehicles, Bonilla's office said in a statement.

The driver must also maintain $1 million for personal injury and property damage from the time a ride request is accepted until the passenger exits the vehicle, her office said.

<snip>
TWA884 is offline