Actually the Seattle draft does not limit the TNC drivers to 16 hours a week. If they apply for the same license as a taxi driver, they can work as many hours as they want. The 16 hour a week license is a special, cheaper for hire license geared to part timers.
What is the CPUC waiting for? They screwed up and allowed the TNCs to continue to practice insurance fraud despite the objections of the CHP, the PCI and the California Insurance Commisioner. They now see the tragic consequences of their incompetence in San Francisco. What further study is needed? Require the TNC vehicles to get commercial insurance like any other livery vehicle.
The big issue in San Francisco is that Uber is carrying excess coverage that applies only if a Uber passenger is in the vehicle. There was no Uber passenger in the vehicle. California holds the registered owner financially responsible up to the limits of his insurance, which must meet a minimum standard. Past that, the operator of the vehicle is responsible for further liability.
The law suit against Uber names “Does 11-20” as the registered owner(s) of the vehicle, but only alleges simple negligence on their part. Eight other counts form the basis for the initial complaint, and Uber is mentioned in each and every one of them.
The position of the insurance industry is going to be that a $8000 per annum premium should be required of each driver for liability coverage between calls. Taxi medallion owners are incensed because their medallions are no longer increasing in value every year. Taxi drivers are incensed because Uber presents an economy of scale that is undercutting fare and tariff structures approved of and enforced by regulatory authorities.
But passengers love them because of the quick service.
Bottom line is that people need to be covered, both passengers in the livery vehicle and the public at large. It shouldn’t matter whether there is a paying passenger in the vehicle at the moment of tragedy. An empty taxi hurts someone, their commercial insurance pays. Should be the same for all livery vehicles; a level playing field.
And it’s not as if drivers can blithely switch back and forth between their personal car insurance and their commercial insurance, based on whether there’s a passenger in their car or not. If you’re using your car for commercial purposes, you are in violation of your car insurance policy, and when the insurance company finds out, your policy will be cancelled — for all your covered vehicles.
Maybe the State Regulators can Legislate that Temporary Uber employment starts 1hr prior to First Fare and ends 1 hour post last delivery. Thus heading off Future Software that allows a Temp Cab from Technically logging out between rides. Uber Insurer should Require Subs to provide Coverage anyway? How are they getting around that?
Cool new Idea. BUT As An Agent if I were to do home Remodels in my Spare time there would be a coverage gap. Same as my Child the Part Time Pizza Delivery person. People will get hurt. Proper Rates need to be in place. State Legislatures should defer to the 100 year old insurance industry as Experts vs the 5 year old internet company with $300M Funding.
Uber is performing the biggest con, and trying to make the insurance company out as the bad guy. Skipping out on paying the claim is basically saying they are not really a taxi service or a ridesharing service. What are they then? One can’t be both but neither. As an agent for 15 years, I know all personal auto policies exclude any coverage for a service that takes money for hire. Either Uber gets a more liberal commercial liability policy that they pass costs along to the consumer, or the consumer buys their own commercial taxi insurance which usually runs north of $6,000 annual. Can’t wait for the class action law suit buy this girls family.
The solution is clear. Uber needs to fill the commercial gap.. they know it is there and they should be responsible for providing coverage for the gap.. simple as can be.. if your logged into uber.. you are on the uber policy.. if your not.. your on your personal policy
Check this out! I am an insurance agent of 13+ years. I decided to join UBER and get the inside scoop. OK, so, with drivers I’ve spoke to, they say the didn’t realize periods 1, 2 & 3 rules! Uber has 50/100/25 up until a passenger is in the car and the driver swipes confirmed before off to destination. The contract charges are 20%, PLUS 28% for their “X an XL” back office, software,blah….That’s 48% of drivers profit and NOT considered is the INSURANCE PREMIUM, TAXES, Maintenance…. Too New? Too soon? My carrier only covers period 1 (same as UBER) so why bother? Now, I have to go straight to commercial and its NOT PRETTY. UBER has high turnover. I see why now…
Well said and rightly stated.
Actually the Seattle draft does not limit the TNC drivers to 16 hours a week. If they apply for the same license as a taxi driver, they can work as many hours as they want. The 16 hour a week license is a special, cheaper for hire license geared to part timers.
What is the CPUC waiting for? They screwed up and allowed the TNCs to continue to practice insurance fraud despite the objections of the CHP, the PCI and the California Insurance Commisioner. They now see the tragic consequences of their incompetence in San Francisco. What further study is needed? Require the TNC vehicles to get commercial insurance like any other livery vehicle.
The big issue in San Francisco is that Uber is carrying excess coverage that applies only if a Uber passenger is in the vehicle. There was no Uber passenger in the vehicle. California holds the registered owner financially responsible up to the limits of his insurance, which must meet a minimum standard. Past that, the operator of the vehicle is responsible for further liability.
The law suit against Uber names “Does 11-20” as the registered owner(s) of the vehicle, but only alleges simple negligence on their part. Eight other counts form the basis for the initial complaint, and Uber is mentioned in each and every one of them.
The position of the insurance industry is going to be that a $8000 per annum premium should be required of each driver for liability coverage between calls. Taxi medallion owners are incensed because their medallions are no longer increasing in value every year. Taxi drivers are incensed because Uber presents an economy of scale that is undercutting fare and tariff structures approved of and enforced by regulatory authorities.
But passengers love them because of the quick service.
Bottom line is that people need to be covered, both passengers in the livery vehicle and the public at large. It shouldn’t matter whether there is a paying passenger in the vehicle at the moment of tragedy. An empty taxi hurts someone, their commercial insurance pays. Should be the same for all livery vehicles; a level playing field.
And it’s not as if drivers can blithely switch back and forth between their personal car insurance and their commercial insurance, based on whether there’s a passenger in their car or not. If you’re using your car for commercial purposes, you are in violation of your car insurance policy, and when the insurance company finds out, your policy will be cancelled — for all your covered vehicles.
Maybe the State Regulators can Legislate that Temporary Uber employment starts 1hr prior to First Fare and ends 1 hour post last delivery. Thus heading off Future Software that allows a Temp Cab from Technically logging out between rides. Uber Insurer should Require Subs to provide Coverage anyway? How are they getting around that?
Cool new Idea. BUT As An Agent if I were to do home Remodels in my Spare time there would be a coverage gap. Same as my Child the Part Time Pizza Delivery person. People will get hurt. Proper Rates need to be in place. State Legislatures should defer to the 100 year old insurance industry as Experts vs the 5 year old internet company with $300M Funding.
Uber is performing the biggest con, and trying to make the insurance company out as the bad guy. Skipping out on paying the claim is basically saying they are not really a taxi service or a ridesharing service. What are they then? One can’t be both but neither. As an agent for 15 years, I know all personal auto policies exclude any coverage for a service that takes money for hire. Either Uber gets a more liberal commercial liability policy that they pass costs along to the consumer, or the consumer buys their own commercial taxi insurance which usually runs north of $6,000 annual. Can’t wait for the class action law suit buy this girls family.
I agree with the insurance companies when they are logged into the app they are performing a commercial service
The solution is clear. Uber needs to fill the commercial gap.. they know it is there and they should be responsible for providing coverage for the gap.. simple as can be.. if your logged into uber.. you are on the uber policy.. if your not.. your on your personal policy
Check this out! I am an insurance agent of 13+ years. I decided to join UBER and get the inside scoop. OK, so, with drivers I’ve spoke to, they say the didn’t realize periods 1, 2 & 3 rules! Uber has 50/100/25 up until a passenger is in the car and the driver swipes confirmed before off to destination. The contract charges are 20%, PLUS 28% for their “X an XL” back office, software,blah….That’s 48% of drivers profit and NOT considered is the INSURANCE PREMIUM, TAXES, Maintenance…. Too New? Too soon? My carrier only covers period 1 (same as UBER) so why bother? Now, I have to go straight to commercial and its NOT PRETTY. UBER has high turnover. I see why now…