This amazes me that Uber and Lyft think that they are above the law. They have applied for permits, but have not received and it appears (from the article) that they went into operation. With the ruling the companies make statements that sound like they are all wounded. Excuse me??? Every other type of business needs the permits/license/ etc in place before starting. Why would Uber and Lyft think that they above the law that every other business must follow?
I think that their model was predicated on the assumption that their PAP would respond-not sure though if they thought that insurers would just broaden their policies or if the TNC’s just didn’t think it through-or if even worse, they don’t care-they will make their money and the drivers who work for them would just be on the hook if the drivers had valid insurance or not.
Its great that we are creating a new gen of capitalists, but capitalism does need to be regulated for the public good.
I don’t know what Uber was telling drivers in other states, but from the news reports that I have watched, Uber was telling drivers that the “ride share” exception to the exclusion would allow them physical damage. That is not a statement from Uber, it was an interview with a driver that was on television on the news program. I am surprised that more lending organizations are not being more vocal about this issue.
This amazes me that Uber and Lyft think that they are above the law. They have applied for permits, but have not received and it appears (from the article) that they went into operation. With the ruling the companies make statements that sound like they are all wounded. Excuse me??? Every other type of business needs the permits/license/ etc in place before starting. Why would Uber and Lyft think that they above the law that every other business must follow?
and what about the exclusion in the PAP about passengers for a fee? Does Uber cover the vehicle when in that useage? seeems like a lot of holes.
I think that their model was predicated on the assumption that their PAP would respond-not sure though if they thought that insurers would just broaden their policies or if the TNC’s just didn’t think it through-or if even worse, they don’t care-they will make their money and the drivers who work for them would just be on the hook if the drivers had valid insurance or not.
Its great that we are creating a new gen of capitalists, but capitalism does need to be regulated for the public good.
I don’t know what Uber was telling drivers in other states, but from the news reports that I have watched, Uber was telling drivers that the “ride share” exception to the exclusion would allow them physical damage. That is not a statement from Uber, it was an interview with a driver that was on television on the news program. I am surprised that more lending organizations are not being more vocal about this issue.