Uber Announces New Policy to Cover Gap

By Don Jergler | March 14, 2014
Ridesharing protest uber lyft sidecar

  • March 14, 2014 at 12:46 pm
    Fair Playing Field says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 14
    Thumb down 2

    It’s a step in the right direction, but there is still less coverage than would be provided under a commercial policy covering a taxi cab or limousine. Uber operators are now “semi-gypsy” cabs.

    In CA, the PUC needs to step up and promulgate more comprehensive regulations to address coverage gaps for transportation network companies like Uber, Lyft and Sidecar.

  • March 14, 2014 at 1:38 pm
    What personal ins carrier? says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 10
    Thumb down 0

    I wanted to know what personal insurance carrier covers the driver for use of their vehicle for hire.

    • March 18, 2014 at 8:34 am
      Ron says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 6
      Thumb down 0

      None. That is why the gap insurance is needed.

      From the article:
      “This policy kicks in when a driver’s personal policy is no longer in effect, after a driver has turned on the Uber app, and before Uber’s $1 million commercial policy is in place, which covers drivers en route to make a pick up and when drivers have passengers.”

  • March 14, 2014 at 1:53 pm
    Jana says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 11
    Thumb down 0

    The limits are still too low and it does not pick up coverage for the damage to the driver’s vehicle.

    • March 14, 2014 at 2:07 pm
      Hmmm says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 13
      Thumb down 0

      There is a reason that insurance on taxi cabs is more expensive than personal auto. The “gap” limits that seem to be so proud to announce meet MINIMUM FR responsibility, but taxi cabs in my statement must carrier $300,000 liability plus $300K UM. Jana brings up a point as well — the livery exclusion on the personal auto policy also applies on the physical damage side of the policy. With Uber saying “we have this $1mm policy for liability”…. they are leaving out that the driver’s car itself may not have any physical damage coverage when engaged in this activity.

      • March 16, 2014 at 9:30 am
        Former Status Quo says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 6
        Thumb down 0

        The TNCs are trying to address the 3rd party coverage issue – as the driver of the vehicle you should have the responsibility of ensuring you have comp/coll coverage.

        The driver is taking the risk, so they should own up to the responsibility for it.

  • March 14, 2014 at 1:59 pm
    P'ville Insurance says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 11
    Thumb down 0

    We all know that state minimums are basically uninsured drivers anyway. How would $50/100k even begin to address the liability in a child’s death and serious injuries to her family? Uber management continues to turn a blind eye to the real world.

  • March 14, 2014 at 2:01 pm
    john says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 9
    Thumb down 0

    These limits are completely insufficient. The PUC needs to step in and do its job to protect the public and the passengers that ultimately will suffer at the time of a loss. I can’t believe that any of these ridesharing services feel this is somehow adequate.

  • March 14, 2014 at 2:05 pm
    TX Agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 9
    Thumb down 1

    In Dallas the local Yellow Cab was found to have over 1,100 vehicles that did NOT have any liability coverage (investigate news report)for months!!!!

    • March 17, 2014 at 4:55 am
      Madee Nahal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 7

      All i know the department of transportation their corrupt , and this is crazy game what i see from Uber and lyft ride ,sharing ect ….. everyone know this illegal what there come up with ,and i don’t understand why the government let them operate with no Licence for hire certificate of authority and commercial insurance 1.5 million to operate or to pick up passengers.
      seriously ?? this is joke .those people we should call them gypsies , not companies which is they don’t own NO VEHICLES NO FOR HIRE CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORITY AND NO COMMERCIAL INSURANCE TO OPERATE OR PICK UP PASSENGERS .
      hello government is your responsibility to shut down those gypsies understand ?? lot of companies and taxi cabs been for more than decade lost their business .ether shutdown
      Thank You .

  • March 17, 2014 at 4:54 am
    Madee Nahal says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 6
    Thumb down 5

    Uber Must shut down no question about it

  • March 17, 2014 at 11:09 am
    JIM JENSEN says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 6
    Thumb down 1

    I FIRST WAS ASKED TO INSURE A NON PROFIT PROGRAM TO SHARE CARS 10 YEARS AGO AND WAS NOT INTERESTED THEN BECAUSE IT IS A BAD IDEA. UBER AND THE OTHERS ARE CIRCUMVENTING COMMERCIAL AUTO COVERAGE BY ATTEMPTING TO USE PERSONAL LINES COVERAGE. TAXI CAB COMPANIES AND BUS LINES HAVE COMMERCIAL LINE COVERAGE…. SAME THING!

  • March 18, 2014 at 8:38 am
    Comm'l Producer says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 9
    Thumb down 0

    The idea that Personal auto insurers are going to create an endorsement to address the gaps here is laughable. How do you pitch this to the carrier. Hmmm… Great idea. Create an endorsement so that you can attract people who are essentially using their vehicles as a livery service. Then when an accident occurs, you are on the hook if this or that happens to be the case, but not if the circumstances are slightly different. Count on having to defend every claim, whether covered by your language or not because the lawyers are going to bring suit against everyone. All this so that you can attract customers who are predisposed to trying to find a way to beat the system. Good luck with that.

    • March 18, 2014 at 11:33 am
      Hmmm says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 8
      Thumb down 0

      Comm’l Producer – I believe that the legislation that many of the Uber type of organizations are pushing is to legislate that Uber,(etc etc) is nothing more than “ride share” or car pooling which personal autos will cover. Everyone needs to keep watch at their state legislature that if this Uber type of state legislation surfaces in your state, you need to be vocal. In my state, lots and lots and lots of money is being thrown at this legislation. Multiple lobbying firms have been hired. Grassroots works if people will get involved.

      • March 18, 2014 at 1:31 pm
        Comm'l Producer says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 4
        Thumb down 0

        Thanks Hmmm for the heads up on the legislative front. I stay up on things with our State association, so I will definitely keep an eye out for this.

  • March 28, 2014 at 10:06 am
    Edgardo Herrera says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 0

    In New Jersey, I just got a call from my insurance broker. I had inquired about insurance requirements for driving with Uber. They stated that I still need commercial insurance in addition to my personal policy and Uber’s. I have to investigate and clarify, but I had to send a letter stating I’m NOT driving with Uber to avoid having to purchase a commercial policy.

    I have to say that between tolls, gas, car wash, business taxes, and now additional commercial auto insurance, the profits looks pretty bad, and if you are not endorsed on your wife’s health insurance as I am, you’re screwed.

    Good luck.

  • May 6, 2014 at 1:33 pm
    Josh Hamilton says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 0

    Uber is not complying with State and local laws . Why are they excempt from the Law ?

    V C Section 23123.5 Electronic Wireless Communications Device Prohibited Use

    Electronic Wireless Communications Device: Prohibited Use

    23123.5. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle
    while using an electronic wireless communications device to write, send,
    or read a text–based communication, unless the electronic wireless
    communications device is specifically designed and configured to allow
    voice operated and hands-free operation to dictate, send, or listen to a
    text-based communication, and it is used in that manner while driving.

    (b) As used in this section “write, send, or read a
    text-based communication” means using an electronic wireless
    communications device to manually communicate with any person using a
    text-based communication, including, but not limited to, communications
    referred to as a text message, instant message, or electronic mail.
    Cal
    (c) For purposes of this section, a person shall not be
    deemed to be writing, reading, or sending a text–based communication if
    the person reads, selects, or enters a telephone number or name in an
    electronic wireless communications device for the purpose of making or
    receiving a telephone call or if a person otherwise activates or
    deactivates a feature or function on an electronic wireless
    communications device.

  • May 6, 2014 at 1:34 pm
    Josh Hamilton says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    UBER is in clear violation of law :

    V C Section 23123.5 Electronic Wireless Communications Device Prohibited Use

    Electronic Wireless Communications Device: Prohibited Use

    23123.5. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle
    while using an electronic wireless communications device to write, send,
    or read a text–based communication, unless the electronic wireless
    communications device is specifically designed and configured to allow
    voice operated and hands-free operation to dictate, send, or listen to a
    text-based communication, and it is used in that manner while driving.

    (b) As used in this section “write, send, or read a
    text-based communication” means using an electronic wireless
    communications device to manually communicate with any person using a
    text-based communication, including, but not limited to, communications
    referred to as a text message, instant message, or electronic mail.
    Cal
    (c) For purposes of this section, a person shall not be
    deemed to be writing, reading, or sending a text–based communication if
    the person reads, selects, or enters a telephone number or name in an
    electronic wireless communications device for the purpose of making or
    receiving a telephone call or if a person otherwise activates or
    deactivates a feature or function on an electronic wireless
    communications device.

  • July 8, 2014 at 10:46 am
    Greg says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 0

    Does anyone know if these companies keep a log of the times these potential drivers are logged in and looking for riders? If not it seems like it should…..could eliminate a lot of claims paid under the PAP.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features