# UberETHICS | Uber Lobbying To Not Close The "Insurance Gap" in Oklahoma TNC Legislation.



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*Ernie Csiszar: Don't believe scare tactics about ridesharing insurance 'gap'*
http://m.tulsaworld.com/opinion/oth...a00-0059-5c0b-8dd6-1b5dffa1b179.html?mode=jqm


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

*"Most personal auto policies today do cover drivers while they are logged into a rideshare company's smartphone app but are not carrying a passenger."*

Ernest (Ernie) Csiszar is a Paid Uber Lobbyist & Consultant currently. But he fails to disclose that in his op-ed. But certainly discloses that he was 2004-06 President of Property & Casualty Insurers Association of America.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

My comment on this Op-ed:


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

They've been making this claim all along, despite the public/official statements from nearly EVERY insurer. 
Despicable.


----------



## geeman (Aug 22, 2014)

Just add this to the more ****ing Uber lies.


----------



## JJcriggins (Dec 28, 2014)

Nice , keep shining a light on these shills!


----------



## lu181 (Nov 3, 2014)

Even the insurance that is provided is only covering uber and the Customer the drivers are mostly left for dead why wouldn't medical be covered, why would drivers car not be covered they pay hundreds or thousands in incentives to solicit new drivers but won't pay for current driver to get back on road asapminers shady practices are slowly catching up. Personally I would drive more if there wasn't such deception from uber


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Rep. Katie Henke (@KatieHenke Twitter) is the author of Oklahoma's TNC Bill










HB 1614 requires NO Gap Insurance coverage.
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf/2015-16 int/hb/HB1614 int.doc


----------



## UberHammer (Dec 5, 2014)

I cannot for the life of me understand why venture capitalists willingly hand over their money to a company that obviously lies so damn much.

"Oh, but they wouldn't lie to investors..... would they?"


----------



## puber (Aug 31, 2014)

The HIILARIOUS thing will be the next what's coming.

Uber will insure each driver killed in the crush for $1M and recover that money for themselves.

All companies do that in case they lose an essential employee and it's 100% legal.

There is nothing for an employee, they just bet $$$ on your life.

Walmart was cut doing that to min pay workers too.
You worth more dead than alive.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Insurance Subsection of Oklahoma's HB 1614 TNC Bill requires *No Gap Insurance* coverage.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Tx rides said:


> They've been making this claim all along, despite the public/official statements from nearly EVERY insurer.
> Despicable.


I can't believe these lying sacks of shit can pull these stunts off on public officials with a straight face OR that the public officials buy their lying sack of shit stories.

It's ****ing insane. Large lying corps and government regulators who don't know their asses from a hole in the ground. What a ****ed up system.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

The entire notion that TNC ride share issues are about gap coverage is utter nonsense and a non starter to begin with. That isn't the issue. 

*The issue is that personal auto policies PROHIBIT DOING LIVERY, period.*


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

puber said:


> The HIILARIOUS thing will be the next what's coming.
> 
> Uber will insure each driver killed in the crush for $1M and recover that money for themselves.
> 
> ...


Yes it's called "dead peasant" insurance. Shows the mindset, eh? Actually Walmart was sued oor it recently and had to pay out to the families. Don't know the details tho.


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> I can't believe these lying sacks of shit can pull these stunts off on public officials with a straight face OR that the public officials buy their lying sack of shit stories.
> 
> It's ****ing insane. Large lying corps and government regulators who don't know their asses from a hole in the ground. What a ****ed up system.


Oh....sit in on the townhalls and listen to these idiots. They come to the table with nary a clue, and repeat whatever they heard from lobbyists. The STUPID questions and comments coming out of Austin city council mouths infuriated me, because these clowns are regulating my company, and forcing me to pay for their ignorance. It was like watching a live recording of Idiocracy.


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> I can't believe these lying sacks of shit can pull these stunts off on public officials with a straight face OR that the public officials buy their lying sack of shit stories.
> 
> It's ****ing insane. Large lying corps and government regulators who don't know their asses from a hole in the ground. What a ****ed up system.


Half of the morons on the Austin city council thought these were benevolent ridesharing drivers taking drunks off the road. While at the end of the rate cutting and other underhanded stunts, that may be close to the TRUTH, that's not what it is, and it should not have been considered as such.

The other half are hell bent on turning Austin in to NYC, where car ownership is a negative force.


----------



## Sanjay (Oct 31, 2014)

*Ride-share insurance glitch needs to be resolved*
*http://m.newsok.com/article/5397131*


----------



## Sanjay (Oct 31, 2014)

Sen. Marty Quinn's SB 436 get it right! It REQUIRES that Uber provide Gap Insurance coverage.
http://openstates.org/ok/bills/2015-2016/SB436/


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Sen. Marty Quinn is an Insurance Industry professional. No wonder his Bill SB 436 gets the Gap Insurance coverage right!
http://www.oksenate.gov/Senators/biographies/quinn_bio.aspx









https://www.shelterinsurance.com/CA/agent/martyquinn


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

It's only strange to me why legislators can't seem to get the picture that personal auto policies are potentially voided by doing ride share. Yeah, supposed gap coverage covers PART of the issue, but it still leaves drivers hanging with their own policies.


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)




----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

Uber and Lyft agreed to a compromise on California's AB 2293. It goes into effect on 07/01/2015.

*Gap Insurance Requirements *of CA's AB 2293:
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M109/K070/109070965.PDF

c. For Period 1, TNCs shall provideprimary insurance in the amount of at least fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for death and personal injury per person, one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) fordeath and personal injury perincident, and thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) for property damage. TNCs may satisfy this requirement through: (a) TNC insurance maintained by the driver; (b) TNC insurance maintained by the TNC that provides coverage if a driver does not maintain the required TNC insurance, or if the driver's TNC insurance ceases to exist or is cancelled; or (c) a combination of
(a) and (b).

d. For Period 1, TNCs shall also maintain insurance coverage that provides excess coverage insuring the transportation network company and the driver in the amount of at least two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) per occurrence to
cover any liability arising from a participating driver using a vehicle in connection with a transportation network company's online-enabled application or platform. TNCs may satisfy this requirement through: (a) TNC insurance maintained by the driver, if the TNC verifies that the driver's TNC insurance covers the driver's use of a vehicle for TNCservices; (b) TNC insurance maintained by the TNC; or (c) acombination of (a) and (b). It is the intent of AB 2293's drafter that, if a TNC driver is logged into more than one TNC app during Period 1, theinsurers providing such excess coverage shall share the cost relating to any claims based on the contract terms or, in the absence of contract terms, on a pro rata basis. In addition, in the event of multiple excess insurance policies, thepolicies will not be stacked.
(End of Appendix A)


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Interesting chicabby. Wonder if Uber/Lyft is considering passing on additional insurance requirements to the drivers or just going to take the whole insurance cost coverage themselves, which appears to be greatly expanded in item D in behalf of drivers. Appears to be liability only in any case. No mention of collision unless 'any liability' is wrapped up in that?


----------



## chi1cabby (May 28, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> Wonder if Uber/Lyft is considering passing on additional insurance requirements to the drivers or just going to take the whole insurance cost coverage themselves, which appears to be greatly expanded in item D in behalf of drivers. Appears to be liability only in any case. No mention of collision unless 'any liability' is wrapped up in that?


TNCs would have to provide this coverage, if such hybrid coverage is not available for purchase to Drivers.
If such coverage is available to Drivers, they would have to verify that Drivers do indeed have Gap Insurance coverage. And obviously they'd have to set the rates where drivers are making enough to be able to justify purchasing Gap Insurance coverage.

I think Gap Insurance coverage is only for Drivers' liability, and does not include Collison coverage for Drivers' cars.


----------

