# Is this premium enough?



## KevinH (Jul 13, 2014)

This article says that the total TNC premium for James River during 9 months in 2013 was just $1.7 million. And this year $18.7 million.
What do you think the total TNC losses would be like. This just seems incredibly low to me.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2014/12/08/349143.htm


----------



## DriversOfTheWorldUnite (Nov 11, 2014)

That's because they don't intend to pay out, . Those funds are only for paying out the small amount of high profile cases, such as that Indian woman.


----------



## John_in_kc (Sep 30, 2014)

that is reasonable as that book of business has reinsurance (purchased with some of that money) to cover the projected loss exposure. The primary book of business will retain a certain amount of the loss.


----------



## LAuberX (Jun 3, 2014)

What % of Uber's total revenue does the $18.7 mil represent?

Not of the billions invested, of the revenue from ops?

Did the $1.00/ride "fee" cover it?


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

That $18.7M is the total of premiums paid by both Uber and Lyft. SideCar is insured by Nautilus Insr. Compare that puny premium with over $60M/yr paid by Chicago's 7000 cabs .


----------



## Walkersm (Apr 15, 2014)

Remember Uber and James River have a clause in their policy that states something to the effect of: The total premium for the policy will be adjusted based on the amount of claims presented during the year. What this means is that basically Uber is just self insuring, propping James river up to provide a piece of paper that says they are covered but will cover all claims they process. Well not Uber but one of thier investors will cover it. That is self insurance and that is basically illegal in all states. But that's none of my business.


----------



## Walkersm (Apr 15, 2014)

chi1cabby said:


> Chicago's 7000 cabs pay over $60M in insurance.


Yea but that's full time insurance. Paying for all accidents stemming from their operations. Uber gets at least 60% of them taken care of by the personal insurance market and drivers own bank accounts. Got to save Uber at least 30 million right there. That of course gets tacked on to the personal insurance bill of millions of drivers. Only a few hundred a year extra.

People should have no problem paying for that since Uber is such a well loved company who reduces fares when there is an emergency and makes sure people get home for a standard rate when they are under the influence. .....Oh Wait


----------



## Walkersm (Apr 15, 2014)

KevinH said:


> This article says that the total TNC premium for James River during 9 months in 2013 was just $1.7 million. And this year $18.7 million.
> What do you think the total TNC losses would be like. This just seems incredibly low to me.
> http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2014/12/08/349143.htm


First 9 months of 2013 was the period 2 and 3 insurance still excess? When did they go to Primary? Have to look that up, think that was in 2014.


----------



## John_in_kc (Sep 30, 2014)

Walkersm said:


> Remember Uber and James River have a clause in their policy that states something to the effect of: The total premium for the policy will be adjusted based on the amount of claims presented during the year. What this means is that basically Uber is just self insuring, propping James river up to provide a piece of paper that says they are covered but will cover all claims they process. Well not Uber but one of thier investors will cover it. That is self insurance and that is basically illegal in all states. But that's none of my business.


That is not correct, it is not illegal. Walmart self insures and so do other large corporations. What that means is that the company retains a certain level of "loss". In exchange for that, they pay a lower premium for covering "catastrophic liability" claims. Uber is practicing smart business. The retain the small property damage/minor injury losses, James River or a third party administrator settles the claims for Uber. James River is stating on its Certificate of insurance, that it will pay up to $1 million towards a liability claim arising out of service provided by Uber drivers (contractors). Uber itself is insured differently.


----------



## Walkersm (Apr 15, 2014)

John_in_kc said:


> That is not correct, it is not illegal. Walmart self insures and so do other large corporations. What that means is that the company retains a certain level of "loss". In exchange for that, they pay a lower premium for covering "catastrophic liability" claims. Uber is practicing smart business. The retain the small property damage/minor injury losses, James River or a third party administrator settles the claims for Uber. James River is stating on its Certificate of insurance, that it will pay up to $1 million towards a liability claim arising out of service provided by Uber drivers (contractors). Uber itself is insured differently.


Sorry you are right, should have been more specific. In most states it is illegal to self insure for commercial auto liability coverage. General liability sure not an issue. But they found when the public is in danger of being killed by projectiles going down the street self insurance has proven to be trouble some. Like for instance I bet Walmart cannot self insure their semi trucks they put on the road. Eventhough i am sure those are set off in a subsidiary to mitigate risk.


----------



## John_in_kc (Sep 30, 2014)

Um, Walmart does self insure their trucking fleet. It is legal to do. They use a TPA to administer the claims. I have settled cases with them before from auto wrecks. Walmart also has a catastrophic insurance policy, but it is secondary to their self insurance risk pool they operate. FedEx does it UPS does it. it is the only way it can be done with these large corporations.

There are a couple of different insurance laws out there. Some states allow a bond to be posted in lieu of an insurance policy for individuals for example.

What Uber has is a Commercial auto liability policy that covers non owned autos. There is nothing sinister about it. As long as the policy conforms to state law (which they all do since they have a clause that states it will conform to state law) then it is fine.

Now, the real issue is claims handling procedures and claims made against Uber for unfair claims practices. One would hope they are smart enough to not engage is shady claims handling practices.
Most consumers are not educated on insurance. There is a coverage issue relying on a personal auto policy while driving around waiting for a ping. once you get the ping, you are covered for liability arising out of your driving 9what the law requires)

personal policies don't cover livery or pizza delivery etc because while engaged in business, your business policy, or your employers business policy covers you (like pizza hut delivery drivers).

The uniqueness here is that typically most livery operators do not use their "daily driver" to haul people around, they use a town car bus limo etc. So now you have cars that need both personal auto and commercial auto for sole proprietors that are not incorporated. that is where regulators and insurers are throwing a hissy fit (I think they are blowing it out of proportion though).

The need in the marketplace will be filled by a hybrid policy that or endorsement for a minimal cost in the near future. The big issue is livery regulations. Uber needs to be treated like a limo/town car operation, not a taxi, taxi companies want it treated like a taxi so they can be crushed.


----------



## Walkersm (Apr 15, 2014)

Cool good to know John. In that case do you think James Rivers is just acting as a TPA in this case? Or an actual insurance carrier?


----------



## John_in_kc (Sep 30, 2014)

Walkersm said:


> Cool good to know John. In that case do you think James Rivers is just acting as a TPA in this case? Or an actual insurance carrier?


Probably an insurance carrier because of the non owned auto issue. I am sure the there is a TPA there, never dealt with an Uber claim.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Walkersm said:


> When did they go to Primary?


End of March 2014, the insurance changed to Primary from Excess during Period 1 & 2. 
Contingent Collison coverage for the Drivers was added a month later.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Meet Uber's hedge-fund-like, Bermuda-based insurer*

*http://fortune.com/2014/12/11/uber-...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer*


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*"So, $19 million to cover all of that doesn't seem like much, even if James River is only covering Uber in the U.S. One of the complaints about Uber is that it doesn't have enough insurance to cover its growing fleet of drivers."*


----------



## KevinH (Jul 13, 2014)

Not sure which report is correct about the time period. This one says 2012-2013 for the revenue figures and the one I quoted said 2013-2014.
_*"One area James River has developed is selling *__*coverage to ridesharing*__* - or transportation network - companies, like Uber. Premiums for that business climbed to $18.7 million in the first nine months of this year from about $1.7 million in the same period in 2013, according to the prospectus."*_​


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

KevinH said:


> Not sure which report is correct about the time period. This one says 2012-2013 for the revenue figures and the one I quoted said 2013-2014.


http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2014/12/08/349143.htm
has the correct time period of "first nine months of 2014". It's from James Rivers' IPO prospectus.
"One area James River has developed is selling coverage to ridesharing - or transportation network - companies, like Uber. Premiums for that business climbed to $18.7 million in the first nine months of this year from about $1.7 million in the same period in 2013, according to the prospectus."


----------



## Sydney Uber (Apr 15, 2014)

John_in_kc said:


> Probably an insurance carrier because of the non owned auto issue. I am sure the there is a TPA there, never dealt with an Uber claim.


This is bullshit! UBER sets every partner up to take a fall if they so wish. They will only cover and pay for the little stuff and other claims to retain a good public image but it is all in your partner terms!

Read your Partner agreement people at least 3 times! I'm thick as a brick so it took me hours. Here is an excerpt:

"SCOPE
2.1 Role of Uber
2.1.1 Partner acknowledges and agrees that Uber does not provide any transportation services,
and that Uber is not a transportation or passenger carrier. Uber offers information and a 
tool to connect Customers seeking Driving Services to Drivers who can provide the Driving 
Service, and it does not and does not intend to provide transportation or act in any way as 
a transportation or passenger carrier. Uber has no responsibility or liability for any driving or 
transportation services provided by the Partner or the Drivers to third parties (including the 
Customers). The Partner and/or the Drivers will be solely responsible for any and all liability 
which results or is alleged to be as a result of the operation of the Vehicle(s) and/or the 
driving or transportation service, including, but not limited to personal injuries, death and 
property damage. Partner agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Uber harmless from and 
against any (potential) claims or (potential) damages incurred by any third party, including 
the Customer or the Driver, raised on account of the provision of the Driving Service. By 
providing the Driving Service to the Customer, the Partner accepts, agrees and 
acknowledges that a direct legal relationship is created and assumed solely between the 
Partner and the Customer. Uber shall not be responsible or liable for the actions, omissions 
and behaviour of the Customer in or in relation to the Partner, the Driver and the Vehicle. 
The Drivers are solely responsible for taking reasonable and appropriate precautions in 
relation to any third party with which they interact in connection with the Driving Service. 
Where this allocation of the Parties' mutual responsibilities may be ineffective under 
applicable law, the Partner undertakes to indemnify, defend and hold Uber harmless from 
and against any claims that may be brought against Uber in relation to the Partner's 
provision of the Driving Service under such applicable law."


----------



## John_in_kc (Sep 30, 2014)

Yes that is correct, if you kill a kid it is your fault not Uber's. You are a contractor not employee. Uber will not pay a claim made by you or passenger against uber itself as a party. The insurance will pay its maximum for your liability, not a penny more. That is how the world has always worked.

Uber is no way responsible for your negligent driving. that is all on the driver. its basic 3rd party law 101.

Consider Uber as nothing more than a lead generation service. That is all it is. It finds customers for you and processes the payment (so it gets it's cut) and you provide the service, either as an uberx driver, or one of the professional driving services.

Insurance really is the drivers liability not Ubers. Uber provides it to incentivize partners to perform.


----------

