# Poll: Insurance



## chi1cabby

This poll is intended to gauge Ride-sharing Drivers sentiment on Insurance.
Yesterday it was announced that the CA Legislature, Gov. Brown and Ride-sharing Companies have reached an agreement on AB 2293. This law would provide for App On Primary Commercial Insurance Coverage.

http://www.sacbee.com/2014/08/27/6660096/deals-emerge-on-california-film.html

Ride-sharing companies had stridently battled against this law as it would have meant higher insurance costs for the Ride-sharing Business Model. They preferred that drivers hide their ride-sharing status from their Personal Car Insurance companies, and file claims arising during the App On, No Active Ride period with their Personal Car Insurance companies first. Till now Ride-sharing companies were providing Secondary Excess Liability Insurance for this Insurance Gap period.

Please take a moment to add comments if you have questions or opinion on this issue.
Thanx!


----------



## ubrad

Isn't this poll sort of akin to "Vote if you are in favor of dessert" or "Vote yes for a new car"? Of course everyone will vote yes to receive a benefit if there is no cost. However, all insurance has a cost, and the implicit assumption in this poll is that the price will be paid by Uber. But Uber isn't a charity, so that money will come from somewhere - likely increased fares and/or lowered driver wages.

Perhaps a better question would be: "Would you be willing to accept a 5 percentage point decrease in driver earnings (75% of gross fares instead of 80%) in exchange for $1MM in insurance coverage at times when the driver app is online?" My answer would be no.

My personal auto insurance policy covers me when I am not transporting others for hire, which means I am already covered when I am online and no fare is in the car. I don't see any reason why Uber rates should increase or my wages should decrease to provide redundant coverage in this case.


----------



## ElectroFuzz

It doesn't mater if we are in favor or not.
Eventually it will be required by every state.
I'm also convinced Uber realized this since the beginning
but took advantage of the legal limbo.
It's to Uber's advantage to start low when going into negotiations
with regulators.


----------



## kalo

ubrad said:


> My personal auto insurance policy covers me when I am not transporting others for hire, which means I am already covered when I am online and no fare is in the car. I don't see any reason why Uber rates should increase or my wages should decrease to provide redundant coverage in this case.


I'm sure regulators will enjoy ready the topics and posts on this forum. Especially the one about the accident where many members say to LIE and commit FRAUD. Kinda unbelievable people like to talk about their deceptive and fraudulent activities in public.


----------



## Emmes

My guess is that's why you only had 4 people "care enough" to post a comment. lol


----------



## UberSF

Never knew people and cars are worth $500,000? The insurance lobby, so powerful, yet so corrupt, just like Uber.


----------



## KevinH

I have spoken to commercial insurance company employees and to a commercial insurance agent. These are the concerns that they have.

1. Insurance rates are determined by age of the primary driver, city where the vehicle is based, cost of the vehicle, nature of the vehicle (sports car, etc.), distance to work, average annual miles, driving history, and many others. For instance, if you live in a "rough part of town" you have a higher chance of being hit by an uninsured or underinsured driver.

A TNC driver changes their total profile of driving in order to accommodate the TNC work. Some of this driving is the work specifically, cruising for passengers and transporting them. Other driving is to and from home to the area where they will be looking for passengers. Other driving is made necessary for the job such as car washes, oil changes and other maintenance. Also the time of day changes, with more driving at night, and in early morning hours where statistically, there are more accidents, intoxicated drivers and pedestrians, poorer visibility. Also insurance companies know that there is more distracted driving with passengers in the car, intoxicated passengers, distracted drivers' use of mobile devices and car doors opening and closing in traffic lanes etc.

2. Insurance companies are in their third year of trying to deal with TNC related accidents, and are finding out that many of the TNC drivers misrepresent the facts of the accident regarding passengers or their use of the vehicle at the time. They have also found that the TNCs are next to impossible to work with in getting corroborating information to help determine the nature of the loss and who should be held accountable for the damages and injuries. Was the app on at the time, was the passenger a friend or customer, etc? One accident investigator I spoke with said the TNC insurance is so bad to actually get coverage from and does not sufficiently cover the driver's own vehicle, that many of the drivers were wrongly claiming that the passengers were "friends" so they could get their own cars repaired under their personal policies. In some cases, the opposite was happening with drivers turning the app on immediately after the accident in order to enable the higher coverage afforded by the TNC umbrella policy. Because of the very high risks associated with the nature of the work, the opportunities for fraud and the difficulty in adjusting the incidents, most personal line carriers (State Farm, GEICO, etc.) and even the commercial insurers want to stay away from this coverage altogether.

3. Depending on the state in which you live, and the liability limits required by regulations, true commercial insurance for conventional passenger carrying vehicles such as taxicabs and limousines is 5-10 times the cost of personal vehicle insurance. True commercial insurance prohibits personal use of the vehicle and assumes that the vehicle is stored at a safe work environment like a garage.

In California where I live, only 4 insurance companies are approved (they use the term "Admitted Carriers") to write commercial personal transportation insurance for taxi and limousine companies. Only recently did just one of these carriers cover commercial vehicles that perform TNC work. And that coverage resulted in a 30-50% increase in cost for the already high commercial rate. Personal and commercial insurance carriers are adding questions to their applications to exclude TNC work.

4. Many large firms that have their employees using taxis and limousines in the course of business plus public places that do business with commercial transportation services have their own insurance requirements. Some large corporations require services to have $5mil in liability and airports and private plane terminals have high limits and require certificates to be filed or to have the entity named as a co-insured to the transport provider's policy. Government facilities such as military bases have their own requirements, secure high risk environments such as oil refineries or terminals will require higher than average commercial limits as well.

In March of this year the Insurance Commissioner Of California Dave Jones held an investigative hearing to help determine legislation and protect both the drivers and public while TNC work was performed.

_Finding 1: Drivers' existing personal automobile insurance does not cover TNC related driving and auto insurers are not planning to offer coverage 
of this risk in the near future, if ever. 
TNCs are under the mistaken impression that personal automobile insurers cover now, planned to cover, or will cover the risk of TNC-related for-hire transportation. Instead, CDI finds that personal automobile insurers never planned or intended to underwrite for this risk, which did not exist when the current policies were written. Insurers did not incorporate for-hire use when developing their rates. Adding this new TNC exposure to the personal automobile insurance pool may increase personal automobile insurance rates. The fact that some exclusions in personal automobile insurance policies may not be clear on this point should not be misinterpreted as an agreement to cover this new TNC risk. One TNC in our hearing argued that the entire requirement for automobile insurance should be on the driver, and not the TNC. However, we have determined based on testimony from insurance trade associations and our direct communications with auto insurers and brokers that the owners of personal vehicles cannot currently purchase insurance that will cover livery use of the vehicle.1 And that most if not all auto insurers have no plans to file for riders or endorsements to enable drivers to purchase this additional coverage as a part of their personal auto insurance._

4. I find the language "mistaken impression" in reference to the testimony by the insurance managers of TNC's as well as a later reference to their testimony that shows a high degree in insincerity to be a rebuke of the cavalier attitude towards driver, the public and the risks created by TNC work.

Two weeks ago, there was a meeting in for the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) in Louisville Kentucky attended by insurance commissioners from across the country along with insurance company representatives, law enforcement personnel, regulatory agency members, and others. On the agenda was a panel discussion regarding TNC work. Panel members included representatives from Uber Lyft, insurance companies and others and was chaired and moderated by California's own Insurance Commissioner, David Jones, the author of the above recommendations.

Out of it came a public warning I cannot post a link but you can find the CDI public recommendations quoted above and the NAIC warning by Googling "california insurance commissioner ride share" and these two documents will appear at the top of the search.

As part of the legislative deal worked out in California on Wednesday insurance limits for TNC were established that are well below standard commercial insurance and what most airports require . This coverage is to come from a new type of "hybrid" policy that does not yet exist. In a news article from the San Francisco Recorder, a legal industry newsletter the reporter wrote:
"_The bill's success will be determined in part on the development of hybrid policies that cover motorists during personal use and while they're driving for TNCs. Although insurers have begun to develop similar policies, they're not widely available yet. The new legislation gives TNCs and their drivers until July 1, 2015, to meet the insurance requirements.
"We have agreed to a compromise that provides clarity for the ridesharing community in California," Lyft spokeswoman Chelsea Wilson said in an email. "However, a truly permanent solution must include the creation of modern insurance products tailored for drivers who participate in peer-to-peer transportation_."

If this is willingness to write this new coverage is true, then it represents a substantial departure from the environment that the California Insurance Commissioner found in March where no one was working on such insurance or planned to.

Several years ago, when some states were adopting new liability standards with "no fault insurance" etc. some carriers withdrew from those states. In this case, if offering the hybrid coverage is optional, some insurers may skip it and if it is required, they may withdraw from those states until there is some statistical foundation for rules and rates.


----------



## KevinH

UberSF said:


> Never knew people and cars are worth $500,000? The insurance lobby, so powerful, yet so corrupt, just like Uber.


What do you think the family of the 6 year old kid that was killed and other family members injured on New Years shoud get, just round numbers here.


----------



## Walkersm

I think it's great. Another great step forward towards less liability exposure for the drivers. As Kevin mention in his detailed post the next step is getting them insured with an accepted and rated carrier. I do not think James Rivers meets the criteria for the airport or the PUC but I think for now they will allow them until they start playing shenanigans with denying claims and such. 

Has Uber or Lyft even mentioned the new coverage? I think this is one they do not want to let all the drivers know about. They don't want all those claims!

Did you see the Vote!! 70-0. Uber/Lyft had zero support on this one!


----------



## chi1cabby

Walkersm said:


> I think it's great. Another great step forward towards less liability exposure for the drivers. As Kevin mention in his detailed post the next step is getting them insured with an accepted and rated carrier. I do not think James Rivers meets the criteria for the airport or the PUC but I think for now they will allow them until they start playing shenanigans with denying claims and such.
> 
> Has Uber or Lyft even mentioned the new coverage? I think this is one they do not want to let all the drivers know about. They don't want all those claims!
> 
> Did you see the Vote!! 70-0. Uber/Lyft had zero support on this one!


They are "supposedly" offering primary coverage now. But there is no clear clear guidance on claims process to the drivers. And no public proclamations of it either.
Santander for financing, James River for insurance...Uber loves scraping the bottom of the barrel in looking for its business partners!


----------



## KevinH

The liability umbrella being primary is good but several issues remain.
1. The coverage may not include "comprehensive" unless separately purchased. This will cover repairs to the car when another vehicle is not paying for it from an accident. This can be a tree falling on the car, a stone that flies up on the road, keying by a disgruntled cabbie, etc. There also needs to be uninsured/underinsured coverage when another car is at fault but cannot pay the costs of repair. If the driver's policy refuses to cover the damages and or cancels the policy because of commercial use then the driver is out the repair costs. If the car is being financed, the bank requires this coverage to protect the loan. In the case of an uncovered financed car, if the owner cannot afford the repairs and the bank finds out about the commercial use, or the car is totaled, the bank will want the full amount of the loan from the owner. Yikes!

2. The insurance company can find out about accidents at the time of renewal by running a DMV report. At that time they may decide to cancel the owner's non-commercial policy.

3. There are three periods that the TNC's and others have identified as times that need to have commercial coverage or umbrella coverage by the TNCs.
Period 1: "app is on - no riders".
Period 2: "driver is pinged and on the way to get passenger".
Period 3: time while passenger is in the car"​There have already been circumstances that don't fit into these categories. One driver ended the job and then the passenger opened the car door into a passing car. It might have happened to a passing biker and triggered the need for the maximum coverage but because the job had been completed, only the lowest coverage or no coverage applied.

4. Many of these policies have a high deductible, so fender-bender, scratches, broken windshield etc. are all paid out of pocket.


----------



## chi1cabby

@KevinH I don't quite understand why you don't declare your self as representing insurance industry. You've posted on this forum 4 times. All 4 posts are on the topic of insurance. These posts are well written, detailed and informative. But you have yet to engage in any back and forth with forum members.

Perhaps the insurance industry's and the ride-sharing drivers' interests are not that far apart. The Ride-sharing companies have not engaged in any meaningful dialogue with the insurance industry. Why doesn't the insurance industry try to convince the ride-sharing drivers that it's in their best interest to work together on this issue rather than hide in the shadows?

I'm just saying...


----------



## KevinH

Thanks again for the compliments, but in no way involved in the insurance industry.

Would get involved in the back and forth but maybe missed where I should step in. Did not like the comment about how people are maybe not worth $500,000 when many accidental deaths, crippling and lifetime injuries cost 10 times that. Here in California 5 young women died in a stretch limousine fire. Not only is that driver, that company, that owner financially devastated and will have to file bankruptcy, lose their business and homes, but they many not even have the money to be represented in court. So I responded to that one.

I drive for a company whose business clients require $5 million in liability, and also has insurance to pay all medical costs when I am injured, even replace my paycheck until I can work again.
In my mind, one of the larger issues is recruiting drivers that really have never worked for themselves before, don't understand all the issues about expenses, taxes and how things can go wrong. Take the family car and make money with it? Great, until an accident puts you out of work and makes you a one car family or no car family and it sits in the shop for weeks while the TNC figures out who should pay. With regular insurance, your company pays no matter whose fault it is and then goes after the other guy when he is at fault. This is called subrogation and makes sure that your car is fixed as soon as possible. If your own insurance does not cover this, then the shop has to wait for all the adjusters to come to agreement. Insurance adjusters know how liability is handled, in California liability is "contributory", if some oncoming traffic car does not see you and turn left in front of you, that driver might say that you were driving too fast and the two adjusters say the other guy pays 75% of the damage to both cars and your company pays 25%. For the most part this haggling is done after the interviews by police reports are examined and is transparent to the drivers. Many years ago i drove with just liability coverage on my beater car because it was not worth it. So my insurance company did not get involved when other people hit my car and it was clearly their fault. The lack of having an adjuster from my company many times meant the other guy's insurance adjuster essentially said "screw you" because there was no insurance expert on my side to argue back or threaten to take them to arbitration.

The TNC's all use one company, James River, which is not an "admitted carrier" but an excess or surplus lines carrier. These carriers are frequently used for umbrella policies that come into use when the limits of the regular policy is exhausted. In most cases the investigation and fault determination are done by the primary, regular company. Now James River will have to do all the work and manage these claims in a much more detailed fashion. They will do this for all the TNCs nationwide. In California the insurance commissioner is debating whether to require TNCs to use an admitted casualty carrier to write the umbrella policy.


----------



## stuber

Most excellent and exhaustive. Kudos. Here's a wacky idea...why doesn't everyone just go get commercial insurance and a separate personal use policy? That would satisfy all parties, then UBER/Lyft/Sidecar/Hailo/Flywheel, etc. could raise the fares to compensate the driver's added expense.

Oh no...I'm sorry, that won't work because 3/4 of the drivers would quit. Customers want the insurance in place, but naturally they don't want to pay for it. Unfortunately, somebody has to.

I don't see any of these TNCs being viable long-term, unless they move towards full-time, professional drivers.


----------



## KevinH

stuber said:


> Most excellent and exhaustive. Kudos. Here's a wacky idea...why doesn't everyone just go get commercial insurance and a separate personal use policy? That would satisfy all parties, then UBER/Lyft/Sidecar/Hailo/Flywheel, etc. could raise the fares to compensate the driver's added expense.
> 
> Oh no...I'm sorry, that won't work because 3/4 of the drivers would quit. Customers want the insurance in place, but naturally they don't want to pay for it. Unfortunately, somebody has to.
> 
> I don't see any of these TNCs being viable long-term, unless they move towards full-time, professional drivers.


I seem to keep responding to insurance issues, and I really only know California, but most commercial carriers will not write coverage for non-commercial vehicles. There is a pseudo commercial category in "using your car for work" where you drive your car as part of your job. This category applies to sales people, news paper delivery, etc. The carrier will charge more and sometimes add some additional coverage like rental replacement when being repaired. But if the vehicle itself is the source of revenue then DMV wants to see commercial plates and the insurance company wants to see commercial plates and apply commercial coverage. Most limousine industry insurance prohibits personal use and personal insurance prohibits any commercial use.
What it seems to be is that insurance as it is written now does not take into account "part time" commercial use. Not sure why the sharp dividing line, I understand why the commercial use is so much more exposure and would have higher rates, but why the personal exclusion? The California legislature thinks that companies can come up with this middle ground. But some TNC drivers drive full time, others just after work and weekends and others just weekends. How do you measure the risk? And asking the driver is asking for fudging. What was the car doing at the time of the accident? Asking the driver is asking for fudging.

The other shoe to drop on long term viability is employee vs. independent contractor status. In addition to driver lawsuits in California and Massachusetts many regulatory agencies are currently in "confidential discussions" with Uber Technologies to get them to reclassify their drivers as employees. Seeing how Uber responds to regulations, I don't think the negotiations will go well. That leaves the regulatory agencies with a tough alternatives, sue Uber, shut them down, fine them regarding different aspects of classification (overtime, minimum wage, time cards, break times, etc.).

For example:
In California, the penalty for not keeping time cards is $100/day/employee. That's $20-50k per day and going on for the last three years, and if the California Labor Board gets pissed, and I have seen this myself, they will ask for an immediate check for say, mmmmmm a month's worth of penalties..... er..... maybe $1.5mil in Uber's case, and if you are unwilling to write the check right then when they are in your office or you want to appeal it, which an employer has a right to do, then they will threaten to go back a year or maybe three years, so "appeal if you want, the chances of winning are slim" and you get hit for the maximum amount and will receive a "Notice of Intent To Levy" and in Uber's case have $millions for years of back penalties vacuumed from their checking accounts. Uber may be able to use their history of drivers logged in, but they will have needed the driver to sign off on their record keeping. That record of works hours must be a cooperative record approved by both parties.

Negotiate in good faith, open your books, cooperate, say your sorry, admit to making a mistake and write a big check, but don't ignore them, don't shine them on or they get pissed. And regulators talk to each other. One person at my company who also is familiar with this said the regulators just wait for the "first blood to get in the water", sort of like other regulators waiting outside your door and then take their turn. Worker's Compensation in California is 30 cents on the dollar, and the Workers Comp Board can asses for back wages even for independent contractors if the contractors do not have a vendor comp certificate on file with the paying company. That Board can also levy an business's bank accounts. Then comes the IRS, then comes the State Board of Equalization, OSHA and more. These agencies have a task force that meets once a month in Sacramento to compare notes on scofflaws and scams and to develop tactics and strategies. Another person in my office reminded me that Al Capone was brought down by the IRS not the FBI.

Unfortunately Uber's attitude is that all of these regulations just don't apply to them, that they don't need to change, the regulations need to change and Uber is not going to wait till that happens.

This morning (9/2/14) a temporary ban for Uber was reported for all of Germany until a court can decide if Uber meets Germany's rigid rules regarding taxis and for hire transportation which it probably wont. The court did not take Uber's cavalier attitude towards previous restraining orders lightly and specifically ruled that Uber staff, not drivers would face 6 months in jail and Uber would face $330,000 (really) per trip in fines for ignoring the ruling. Big money! Uber's response? "We will keep operating"
Reading the forums, you get the impression that "the honeymoon is over" between Uber and drivers. The internet allows regulators to see what is happening elsewhere in the world and increasingly, their honeymoon is over too.


----------



## Sydney Uber

UberSF said:


> Never knew people and cars are worth $500,000? The insurance lobby, so powerful, yet so corrupt, just like Uber.


Hospital ICU care is between $3000-$15,000 per day. That half a million would dry up real quick if the Uber maimed person survived a Auto accident and needed lifelong rehabilitation, special care, home conversion etc.


----------



## chi1cabby

KevinH said:


> I seem to keep responding to insurance issues, and I really only know California, but most commercial carriers will not write coverage for non-commercial vehicles. There is a pseudo commercial category in "using your car for work" where you drive your car as part of your job. This category applies to sales people, news paper delivery, etc. The carrier will charge more and sometimes add some additional coverage like rental replacement when being repaired. But if the vehicle itself is the source of revenue then DMV wants to see commercial plates and the insurance company wants to see commercial plates and apply commercial coverage. Most limousine industry insurance prohibits personal use and personal insurance prohibits any commercial use.
> What it seems to be is that insurance as it is written now does not take into account "part time" commercial use. Not sure why the sharp dividing line, I understand why the commercial use is so much more exposure and would have higher rates, but why the personal exclusion? The California legislature thinks that companies can come up with this middle ground. But some TNC drivers drive full time, others just after work and weekends and others just weekends. How do you measure the risk? And asking the driver is asking for fudging. What was the car doing at the time of the accident? Asking the driver is asking for fudging.
> 
> The other shoe to drop on long term viability is employee vs. independent contractor status. In addition to driver lawsuits in California and Massachusetts many regulatory agencies are currently in "confidential discussions" with Uber Technologies to get them to reclassify their drivers as employees. Seeing how Uber responds to regulations, I don't think the negotiations will go well. That leaves the regulatory agencies with a tough alternatives, sue Uber, shut them down, fine them regarding different aspects of classification (overtime, minimum wage, time cards, break times, etc.).
> 
> For example:
> In California, the penalty for not keeping time cards is $100/day/employee. That's $20-50k per day and going on for the last three years, and if the California EDD gets pissed, and I have seen this myself, they will ask for an immediate check for say, mmmmmm a month's worth of penalties..... er..... maybe $1.5mil in Uber's case, and if you are unwilling to write the check right then when they are in your office or you want to appeal it, which an employer has a right to do, then they will threaten to go back a year or maybe three years, so "appeal if you want, the chances of winning are slim" and you will receive a "Notice of Intent To Levy" have $millions for years of back penalties vacuumed from your checking accounts. Uber may be able to use their history of driver logged in, but they will have needed the driver to sign off on their record keeping. That record of works hours must be a cooperative record.
> 
> Negotiate in good faith, open your books, cooperate, say your sorry, admit to making a mistake and write a big check, but don't ignore them, don't shine them on or they get pissed. And regulators talk to each other. One person at my company who also is familiar with this said the regulators just wait for the "first blood to get in the water", sort of other regulators waiting outside your door and then take their turn. Worker's Compensation in California is 30 cents on the dollar, and the Workers Comp Board can asses for back wages even for independent contractors if the contractors do not have a vendor comp certificate on file with the paying company. That Board can also levy an business's bank accounts. Then comes the IRS, then comes the State Board of Equalization, OSHA and more. These agencies have a task force that meets once a month in Sacramento to compare notes on scofflaws and scams and to develop tactics and strategies. Another person in my office reminded me that Al Capone was brought down by the IRS not the FBI.
> 
> Unfortunately Uber's attitude is that all of these regulations just don't apply to them, that they don't need to change, the regulations need to change and Uber is not going to wait till that happens.
> 
> This morning (9/2)Uber got a temporary ban in Germany until a court can decide if Uber meets Germany's rigid rules regarding taxis and for hire transportation. The court did not take Uber's cavalier attitude towards previous restraining orders lightly and specifically ruled that Uber staff, not drivers would face 6 months in jail and Uber would face $330,000 (really) per trip in fines for ignoring the ruling. Big money! Uber's response? "We will keep operating"
> Reading the forums, you get the impression that "the honeymoon is over" between Uber and drivers. The internet allows regulators to see what is happening elsewhere in the world and increasingly, their honeymoon is over too.


Thanx @KevinH for another detailed and informative post on the issues surrounding Ride-sharing!

As far as the issue of providing App On Primary Commercial Liability Insurance, you forgot to take into account the challenges posed by drivers running Uber, Lyft and SideCar concurrently. Now which company's policy pays for the claim arising during the match phase?

These companies are going to have to work cooperatively and agree to provide detailed data to a single insurer who can then prorate the premiums that are calculated by some esoteric formula.


----------



## Sydney Uber

KevinH said:


> I seem to keep responding to insurance issues, and I really only know California, but most commercial carriers will not write coverage for non-commercial vehicles. There is a pseudo commercial category in "using your car for work" where you drive your car as part of your job. This category applies to sales people, news paper delivery, etc. The carrier will charge more and sometimes add some additional coverage like rental replacement when being repaired. But if the vehicle itself is the source of revenue then DMV wants to see commercial plates and the insurance company wants to see commercial plates and apply commercial coverage. Most limousine industry insurance prohibits personal use and personal insurance prohibits any commercial use.
> What it seems to be is that insurance as it is written now does not take into account "part time" commercial use. Not sure why the sharp dividing line, I understand why the commercial use is so much more exposure and would have higher rates, but why the personal exclusion? The California legislature thinks that companies can come up with this middle ground. But some TNC drivers drive full time, others just after work and weekends and others just weekends. How do you measure the risk? And asking the driver is asking for fudging. What was the car doing at the time of the accident? Asking the driver is asking for fudging.
> 
> The other shoe to drop on long term viability is employee vs. independent contractor status. In addition to driver lawsuits in California and Massachusetts many regulatory agencies are currently in "confidential discussions" with Uber Technologies to get them to reclassify their drivers as employees. Seeing how Uber responds to regulations, I don't think the negotiations will go well. That leaves the regulatory agencies with a tough alternatives, sue Uber, shut them down, fine them regarding different aspects of classification (overtime, minimum wage, time cards, break times, etc.).
> 
> For example:
> In California, the penalty for not keeping time cards is $100/day/employee. That's $20-50k per day and going on for the last three years, and if the California Labor Board gets pissed, and I have seen this myself, they will ask for an immediate check for say, mmmmmm a month's worth of penalties..... er..... maybe $1.5mil in Uber's case, and if you are unwilling to write the check right then when they are in your office or you want to appeal it, which an employer has a right to do, then they will threaten to go back a year or maybe three years, so "appeal if you want, the chances of winning are slim" and you get hit for the maximum amount and will receive a "Notice of Intent To Levy" and in Uber's case have $millions for years of back penalties vacuumed from their checking accounts. Uber may be able to use their history of drivers logged in, but they will have needed the driver to sign off on their record keeping. That record of works hours must be a cooperative record approved by both parties.
> 
> Negotiate in good faith, open your books, cooperate, say your sorry, admit to making a mistake and write a big check, but don't ignore them, don't shine them on or they get pissed. And regulators talk to each other. One person at my company who also is familiar with this said the regulators just wait for the "first blood to get in the water", sort of like other regulators waiting outside your door and then take their turn. Worker's Compensation in California is 30 cents on the dollar, and the Workers Comp Board can asses for back wages even for independent contractors if the contractors do not have a vendor comp certificate on file with the paying company. That Board can also levy an business's bank accounts. Then comes the IRS, then comes the State Board of Equalization, OSHA and more. These agencies have a task force that meets once a month in Sacramento to compare notes on scofflaws and scams and to develop tactics and strategies. Another person in my office reminded me that Al Capone was brought down by the IRS not the FBI.
> 
> Unfortunately Uber's attitude is that all of these regulations just don't apply to them, that they don't need to change, the regulations need to change and Uber is not going to wait till that happens.
> 
> This morning (9/2/14) Uber got a temporary ban in Germany until a court can decide if Uber meets Germany's rigid rules regarding taxis and for hire transportation which it probably wont. The court did not take Uber's cavalier attitude towards previous restraining orders lightly and specifically ruled that Uber staff, not drivers would face 6 months in jail and Uber would face $330,000 (really) per trip in fines for ignoring the ruling. Big money! Uber's response? "We will keep operating"
> Reading the forums, you get the impression that "the honeymoon is over" between Uber and drivers. The internet allows regulators to see what is happening elsewhere in the world and increasingly, their honeymoon is over too.


So why have the various regulatory agencies around the world held back?


----------



## Sydney Uber

chi1cabby said:


> Thanx @KevinH for another detailed and informative post on the issues surrounding Ride-sharing!
> 
> As far as the issue of providing App On Primary Commercial Liability Insurance, you forgot to take into account the challenges posed by drivers running Uber, Lyft and SideCar concurrently. Now which company's policy pays for the claim arising during the match phase?
> 
> These companies are going to have to work cooperatively and agree to provide detailed data to a single insurer who can then prorate the premiums that are calculated by some esoteric formula.


In an earlier post I did say a ride share driver would probably be seen as a lower risk than a full time Cabbie. Not as low as a Private motorist as commercial driving does increase risks.

Its unfair to the Mums & Dads who are contributing to an insurance pool as private motorists to see their premiums increase because of commercial activities by rideshare drivers increase payout events.


----------



## chi1cabby

Sydney Uber said:


> So why have the various regulatory agencies around the world held back?





Sydney Uber said:


> In an earlier post I did say a ride share driver would probably be seen as a lower risk than a full time Cabbie. Not as low as a Private motorist as commercial driving does increase risks.
> 
> Its unfair to the Mums & Dads who are contributing to an insurance pool as private motorists to see their premiums increase because of commercial activities by rideshare drivers increase payout events.


That is the main reason Gov Brewer vetoed the Ride-sharing Bill in Arizona...it tried to pass the increased costs on to regular rate payers.


----------



## Sydney Uber

chi1cabby said:


> That is the main reason Gov Brewer vetoed the Ride-sharing Bill in Arizona...it tried to pass the increased costs on to regular rate payers.


At least someone out there in Politics can see how every dime that Uber saves in its operating and regulatory costs its stealing from both drivers and the general public.

Uber's value increases on the back of Rideshare car owners devaluing their cars for UBER'S advantage,

Uber's profits and growth are artificially increased through avoiding regulatory and insurance costs.


----------



## stuber

I'm predicting that Hailo will eventually prevail in this TNC industry. Ridesharing is heading for a cliff


----------



## chi1cabby

*Uber sues Ohio to prevent insurance policies from being shared with the public*

http://pando.com/2014/09/02/uber-su...e-policies-from-being-shared-with-the-public/


----------



## chi1cabby

*Uber plays hardball but fails to win the game*

*http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranc...dball-but-fails-to-win-the-game.html?page=all*


----------



## stuber

Thanks chi1. Following the news on this is turning into an obsession. There must be hundreds of articles a day to keep track of.

I appreciate the curating.


----------



## chi1cabby

*2014's 'insurance story of the year'? I'll give you 2 hints: Lyft and Uber*

http://m.propertycasualty360.com/20...e-year-ill-give-you-2-h?t=commercial-business


----------



## Nova

The bottom line is probably that in many states if you let your auto insurance agent / company know that you are driving for Uber or Lfyt or Sidecar, your auto policy will be cancelled.

I ran the Uber policy by a commercial underwriter friend who told me it looked "OK" but warned me that if my agent found out I was driving for Uber my auto policy would almost certainly be cancelled.

I spoke with several insurance brokers in the mid-Atlantic area about getting commercial coverage to drive for Uber and was told I did not qualify with a personal vehicle, but if I did qualify, as an individual with 1 car and not part of a fleet the cost of a commercial policy would be a minimum of $5k per year.

YMMV

.


----------



## uberdriver

Nova said:


> I ran the Uber policy by a commercial underwriter friend who told me it looked "OK" but warned me that if my agent found out I was driving for Uber my auto policy would almost certainly be cancelled.


and


chi1cabby said:


> *Uber sues Ohio to prevent insurance policies from being shared with the public*
> http://pando.com/2014/09/02/uber-su...e-policies-from-being-shared-with-the-public/


Nova: Can you clarify which policy(ies) you had to share with the underwriter ? I presume the one(s) you had is public. So what are the (other) policies that Ohio is trying to get disclosed ?


----------



## Nova

uberdriver said:


> and
> 
> Nova: Can you clarify which policy(ies) you had to share with the underwriter ? I presume the one(s) you had is public. So what are the (other) policies that Ohio is trying to get disclosed ?


See these posts:

http://blog.uber.com/ridesharinginsurance

http://blog.uber.com/uberXridesharinginsurance

which link to this scribd doument.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/234793785/Certificate-of-Liability-Insurance-7-22-14

You can see other documents UberComms has uploaded to Scribd here:
http://www.scribd.com/UberComms

I've also attached 2 PDFs, which IIRC are the 2 documents I sent to underwriter friend. IIRC I downloaded these in May or June of this year. I did carry them in my car (UberX) when I was driving for Uber, along with an "incident report form," also attached.

My guess is that what Uber is discussing in Ohio is different: probably a regulatory filing with a LOT more detail, and state specific.

YMMV

.


----------



## uberdriver

UberSF said:


> Never knew people and cars are worth $500,000? The insurance lobby, so powerful, yet so corrupt, just like Uber.


I am not getting into the argument of whether it should be $200K, $500K, or $5MM (or around $25K as currently required in most states for registering a car). But you are forgetting which is the #1 and very powerful lobbying group that always pushes for higher liability limits, claims, awards, etc. It is not the insurance industry, but the trial lawyers association of America. As many victims of accidents have (too late) found out, these sharks keep 40-50% of the awards BEFORE any of the expenses of the case are paid, so many times the victim ends up with almost nothing of the award. Trial lawyers are the highest paid professionals, and a vast porportion of them are multimillionaires.


----------



## Walkersm

From the article:

Lane Kasselman, an Uber spokesman, said that Uber does not encourage lying. “When driver partners ask us about the process for making a claim to their personal insurer, we recommend that they are honest and clear with their insurer,” 

You heard them guys no more lying. Be honest.


----------



## Nova

Walkersm said:


> From the article:
> 
> Lane Kasselman, an Uber spokesman, said that Uber does not encourage lying. "When driver partners ask us about the process for making a claim to their personal insurer, we recommend that they are honest and clear with their insurer,"
> 
> You heard them guys no more lying. Be honest.


Yes, honest like Uber. Uber Honest! - #UberLies

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...f5d82c-224a-11e4-958c-268a320a60ce_story.html

http://chicago.craigslist.org/chc/res/4655870009.html


----------



## chi1cabby

Uber back to it's Insurance Fraud shenanigans in Canada! The coverage provided is SECONDARY to the driver's Personal Car Insurance!

*UBERX SAFETY IN TORONTO*

*http://blog.uber.com/CanadaXSafety*


----------



## chi1cabby

*Pennsylvania:*
*Uber details insurance policy at hearing*

*http://www.post-gazette.com/busines...aring/stories/201409100014#|gigyaMobileDialog*


----------



## cybertec69

Your post does not apply for NYC Taxi or FHV operators.


----------



## Walkersm

cybertec69 said:


> Your post does not apply for NYC Taxi or FHV operators.


Thats true cybertec. UberX in NYC is unique among all markets so none of that applies.


----------



## chi1cabby

Gov. Brown signs ride-sharing insurance bill into law

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ride-sharing-bill-20140918-story.html


----------



## chi1cabby

Intent of California Ride-sharing Insurance Bill AB 2293:
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M109/K070/109070965.PDF


----------



## chi1cabby

From PDF linked above:

APPENDIX A
Assembly Bill 2293

a. For Periods 2 and 3, TNCs must provide primary commercial insurance in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000). 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 TNC services; (b) TNC insurance maintained by the TNC; or (c) a combination of (a) and (b).

b. TNCs shall also provide uninsured motorist coverage and underinsured motorist coverage in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000) during Period 3 from the moment a passenger enters the vehicle until the passenger exits the vehicle. 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 TNC services; (b) TNC insurance maintained by the TNC; or (c) a combination of (a) and (b). The policy may also provide this coverage during any other time period, if requested by a participating driver relative to insurance maintained by the driver.

c. For Period 1, TNCs shall provide primary 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) for death and personal injury per incident, 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 TNC services; (b) TNC insurance maintained by the TNC; or (c) a combination 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, the insurers 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, the policies will not be stacked.
(End of Appendix A)


----------



## chi1cabby

Here is an Uber Driver's experience with the Insurance coverage:

While driving for Uber in Los Angeles, I came to understand a deficiency in their car insurance policy that I'd like to illuminate for other drivers. A passenger exited my car on the left side into an oncoming car and cracked the other driver's right side mirror. I followed up with Uber on this incident and was sent their insurance terminology: http://blog.uber.com/ridesharinginsurance They claim that they will cover any incident from the start of the trip if the driver's insurance will not cover for any reason. This applied as I came to understand that my personal insurance would drop me if I tried to claim. Uber states on their site that all of their drivers are covered by commercial insurance but as this is no where in their driver set-up process as a requirement, this is a fictitious statement and clearly harming their drivers. I had no idea this was necessary until it was too late. I was told by Uber that they would not cover this incident and was left out to dry. I have not driven for them since. Any company who would treat their employees so carelessly doesn't deserve the talent. Drive for Lyft and deal with the pink mustache. At least they seem to care to do the right thing. Be WARNED.​

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/uberdrivers/comments/2aseih


----------



## chi1cabby

This is the study that the above article is based on. It is a good comprehensive read on Ride-sharing Insurance.

http://www.rstreet.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/RSTREET28.pdf


----------



## cybertec69

In NYC all Taxi and FHV vehicles are required to carry commercial auto insurance, without it you are not getting Taxi or FHV vehicle license plates, which also require a yearly commercial registration, once you have all those requirements you need to go to the TLC Inspection station for a strenuous vehicle inspection test, once your car passes it get 3 diamond stickers plastered on your Windows, got the passangers and the inspectors to see, and without those you can not work with any Taxi or FHV dispatch service, we are regulated to the tilt here in this state. You can not pick up anyone for a fare with your regular insurance and plates, you get cought and you face a steep fine and impounding of your car. You also need to have your FHV/Taxi drivers license and diamond sticker "base affiliation" visible for the passanger to see, mine hand in a pouch being the drivers and passangers seats. No funny business here. Also you are the only one allowed to drive the vehicle, not the wife, girlfriend or the kids.


----------



## cybertec69

chi1cabby said:


> And that's the reason why NYC is the only market where UberX is not cheaper than a regular cab. Full commercial insurance, licensure etc means full cost of running a taxi service.
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-versus-taxi-best-deal-cheaper-2014-10


Newsflash, uberx in nyc is now cheaper than a yellow Street hail Taxi, they have plastered advertisements everywhere. Uberx drivers in nyc are screwed. We have been cheaper since June.


----------



## cybertec69

We don't get paid for cancelations.


----------



## chi1cabby

The insurance secret that Uber doesn't want you to know

http://www.policygenius.com/blog/insurance-secret-uber-doesnt-want-know/


----------



## josolo

I think Travis should break off some of that 18 billion and start an insurance company that caters to this new frontier, to support his business model and his work force, ...at the same time usurping that industry segment as well. Of course, I know nothing of what that would require or how uber drivers would feel about it but I would be interested to look at something like that.


----------



## chi1cabby

josolo said:


> I think Travis should break off some of that 18 billion and start an insurance company that caters to this new frontier, to support his business model and his work force, ...at the same time usurping that industry segment as well. Of course, I know nothing of what that would require or how uber drivers would feel about it but I would be interested to look at something like that.


This is actually what's happening in an indirect way. Goldman Sachs owns James River Insurance, and is an early investor in Uber.


----------



## ElectroFuzz

chi1cabby said:


> This is actually what's happening in an indirect way. Goldman Sachs owns James River Insurance, and is an early investor in Uber.


That and the way the insurance is written says that basically James River
is guaranteed a certain amount of profit.
If there are too many claims Uber will have make up the difference.... aka a self insurance really.


----------



## Sydney Uber

chi1cabby said:


> This is actually what's happening in an indirect way. Goldman Sachs owns James River Insurance, and is an early investor in Uber.


Goldman Sachs - another charming company to hop into bed with......just have your Tin Pants on!


----------

