# Commercial property risks



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

This is a major concern for many hotels, event centers, and airports, regardless of some drivers' core belief that what they do in their personal vehicle is no one's business.

_"Most Uber and Lyft drivers don't have commercial insurance, Cockream said, and if they have an accident on commercial property, the property owners could be held liable for injuries or damages."

http://tbo.com/news/business/ut-ask...ocial&utm_source=Facebook&utm_campaign=buffer_


----------



## Chip Dawg (Jul 27, 2014)

Have a permitting process for drivers showing proof of commercial insurance.


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

Chip Dawg said:


> Have a permitting process for drivers showing proof of commercial insurance.


That is the logical method, but I don't think this horse will return to the barn. Lawlessness has been too successful.


----------



## Chip Dawg (Jul 27, 2014)

Increase the penalties or threaten criminal trespass charges.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Tx rides said:


> That is the logical method, but I don't think this horse will return to the barn. Lawlessness has been too successful.


The insurance industry will catch up to this game fast. Bank on it! I was reading the Pennsylvania legislation that chicabby put up yesterday and it is a pretty creative solution. They are making Uber be THEE PRIMARY insurer when just app on, no pax, no accepted ping. Just app on.

Any Uber driver in Penn. would be damn fools to drive without app on and just put Uber on the hook for the whole time, if they are in slow ping areas or can get by without taking pings when on personal biz, etc.

It will be interesting to see how long Uber wants to leave it's PRIMARY neck in the liability noose when just app on rather than their preferred 2nd position.

They also have a requirement for the DRIVERS to sign that they checked with their auto insurance companies to insure their policies cover the activity. That means if DRIVERS try to bullshit and whine their way through it by lying (oh, wah wah wah, I called and they said it was OK! yeah, sure ya did....prove it!) they are technically signing on for FRAUDULENT REPORTING to the STATE which the state just LOVES to have the populace involved in to hammer the hell out of them with fines. The personal auto companies merely have to shoot a disclaimer to that state that any 'registered' ride share/TNC driver that has claimed their policies are sufficient ARE LYING.

So, the drama unfolds and unfurls!

I have trust in the greedy insurance companies to resolve this issue across the board in the U.S. by the end of next year, tops.


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

Chip Dawg said:


> Increase the penalties or threaten criminal trespass charges.


I don't think that will work either.they have been very successful at cyber bullying elected officials, enforcement agencies, etc. In Austin, the police have been in full support of open violations of our rules and laws. The city enforcement agencies only hassle the fully permitted operators. They inspect our trip sheets, our chauffeurs' permits, etc., and disappear when an Uber car pulls up to the curb. One of our peers was in San Francisco earlier this year, and an airport official showed him the boxes of unused permits, and pointed out countless Uber/Lyft cars in the area. These are drivers who were given every opportunity to become permitted, and just ignored it. I think that lawlessness will become the norm. 
It is not a model we will follow with our company, but I know several smaller operators who are already figuring out it would be easier to do so.


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> The insurance industry will catch up to this game fast. Bank on it! I was reading the Pennsylvania legislation that chicabby put up yesterday and it is a pretty creative solution. They are making Uber be THEE PRIMARY insurer when just app on, no pax, no accepted ping. Just app on.
> 
> Any Uber driver in Penn. would be damn fools to drive without app on and just put Uber on the hook for the whole time, if they are in slow ping areas or can get by without taking pings when on personal biz, etc.
> 
> ...


Didn't California effectively put the same policy into place with AB2293?


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> The insurance industry will catch up to this game fast. Bank on it! I was reading the Pennsylvania legislation that chicabby put up yesterday and it is a pretty creative solution. They are making Uber be THEE PRIMARY insurer when just app on, no pax, no accepted ping. Just app on.
> 
> Any Uber driver in Penn. would be damn fools to drive without app on and just put Uber on the hook for the whole time, if they are in slow ping areas or can get by without taking pings when on personal biz, etc.
> 
> ...


Well, regardless of how one feels about insurance greed, the risk is higher, the premium will be higher. Like death, and taxes, It's a given. You are not going to run a transportation service without good insurance. Not for long, anyway.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Tx rides said:


> Didn't California effectively put the same policy into place with AB2293?


I haven't reviewed their legislation. From doing the short reads on Penn and Colo. there is some transition time involved. I suspect Cali's may be similar. But these issues WILL get 'legally' settled on the part of the drivers. Not saying it will be good, but it will get settled and the personal auto policy sufficiency is going to go away, permanently, imho.


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> I haven't reviewed their legislation. From doing the short reads on Penn and Colo. there is some transition time involved. I suspect Cali's may be similar. But these issues WILL get 'legally' settled on the part of the drivers. Not saying it will be good, but it will get settled and the personal auto policy sufficiency is going to go away, permanently, imho.


I think you're right. I have heard from several in the industry that they are flat out not going to get into the business of guessing whether drivers are operating commercially or not. That is not to say they are not planning to provide coverage, they are not planning to guess which coverage should apply.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Tx rides said:


> I think you're right. I have heard from several in the industry that they are flat out not going to get into the business of guessing whether drivers are operating commercially or not. That is not to say they are not planning to provide coverage, they are not planning to guess which coverage should apply.


It will be livery insurance and it WILL be expensive and it will put most part timers out of biz unless the fare rates go UP or Uber puts their own necks in the noose, which is UNlikely.


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> It will be livery insurance and it WILL be expensive and it will put most part timers out of biz unless the rates go UP.


Yep!!! I almost bore myself with this statement, but here it is again: "TNC technology, in NO WAY removed or reduced the standard operating expenses for hired car service. Mileage, insurance, labor, credit card processing fees, customer support and comps for screw ups....these did not change simply because you loaded an app on your phone"


----------



## Berliner (Oct 29, 2014)

Tx rides said:


> Yep!!! I almost bore myself with this statement, but here it is again: "TNC technology, in NO WAY removed or reduced the standard operating expenses for hired car service. Mileage, insurance, labor, credit card processing fees, customer support and comps for screw ups....these did not change simply because you loaded an app on your phone"


These are the reasons why UberX was kicked out of business in Germany. No court here listen to their scientology ramblings.


----------

