# Accident-How do I prove I was not working at the time of the accident to my insurance.



## Bmonaye

I was involved in an accident recently while I was not working. I was in between trips, I had no passenger nor was I en-route to a pick up. My app was off, I was heading to get food for myself when I got in the accident. The accident was deemed to be my fault but my insurance company is trying to pass the liability on to Uber. I don't want to get Uber involved since I was not working. I have provided my weekly trip statement and all trip information as a pdf for the day of the incident.

How do I show them that I had no activity on my app at the time of the incident?! I'd appreciate any advice, this is real stressful to say the least.


----------



## Disgusted Driver

Not enough information:

1) Do you have commercial insurance?

2) How does insurance company know you drive for Uber, i.e. what have you already told them?


----------



## Bmonaye

1) no commercial insurance, at the time of the incident I was using my car for personal use. 

2)the other driver told them about my uber sign in the window and they figured to peruse uber to cover it that instead of themselves.


----------



## TimFromMA

I have a nagging suspicion that this is going to end badly for you.


----------



## Bmonaye

meaning? How so, I am covered either way.


----------



## chi1cabby

Bmonaye said:


> My app was idle


Were you logged on the Partner App at that time?
If you were logged in at the time of the accident, you can ask your Personal Car Insurance co to deny your claim. Then Uber's contingent gap insurance coverage should be responsible for your liabilities.
If you were not logged in at the time of the accident, you can ask Uber to provide you with Login activity record for that day to submit to your insurer. Now I'm not sure if Uber will actually provide you with a Login Record, but that's the only way to prove to your insurer that you were engaged in personal (non commercial) driving at that time.

Attn. Walkersm


----------



## TimFromMA

Bmonaye said:


> meaning? How so, I am covered either way.


While I certainly don't know for sure, this is how I can see it playing out.

You may not have had a passenger but if you are online you are working.
If you were online, your private insurance has a valid claim for making you use the Uber insurance.
I THINK that Uber only covers liability with a $1000 deductible which means you are on the hook for 100% of your repairs plus $1000 of the other car.
Now that they know you drive for Uber, your insurance could drop you all together.
If your car is financed, your finance company may take issue with you using the car for business purposes.


----------



## Simon

Why oh why would you have the Uber sign on your car. Stay undercover Like the ********* you are.

Good luck, your gonna need it.


----------



## limepro

If you haven't stated that you work for uber having a sticker on your car means squat. People drive around with stickers for all sorts of things is my insurance gonna tell me to call monster if I have a monster sticker on my car?


----------



## observer

Please keep us informed on what happens. You may help others make better decisions by letting us know how this works out for you.


----------



## Tx rides

This has always been the sticking point for personal insurance. They know all about "fare trolling", which was always a risky phase, especially since it now involves another layer of distraction. Every driver can say "I was just running a personal errand", even if they were circling the most congested block, cruising through a stop light as they monitored their "surge" screen to best position themselves for the next hail. This is why they have declined coverage in so many cases, and is why everyone from property owners to drivers have asked for APP ON coverage. The only ones who have NOT asked for it are the companies drawing profit while the rest of you run around "nekkid"


----------



## Bmonaye

My app was not on, I had the app turned off. I was not "fare trolling" at the time. How do I show this to my insurance company.


----------



## chi1cabby

Bmonaye said:


> My app was not on, I had the app turned off. I was not "fare trolling" at the time. How do I show this to my insurance company.


Ask Uber to provide you with your Partner App Login Activity Record for the day for a accident claim adjudication.


----------



## Huberis

Bmonaye said:


> My app was not on, I had the app turned off. I was not "fare trolling" at the time. How do I show this to my insurance company.


Had you disclosed to your personal insurer you were an active Uber driver? If you failed to disclose....... they may be tough on you as far as covering your claim goes. If all they do is fail to cover your claim, but decide not to drop you, on paper, that would be the lesser of shitty outcomes.

Thank you for sharing, hopefully everything will work out for you. This is a rather important thread to say the least.


----------



## observer

Huberis said:


> Had you disclosed to your personal insurer you were an active Uber driver? If you failed to disclose....... they may be tough on you as far as covering your claim goes. If all they do is fail to cover your claim, but decide not to drop you, on paper, that would be the lesser of shitty outcomes.
> 
> Thank you for sharing, hopefully everything will work out for you. This is a rather important thread to say the least.


This is actually a very good point.

Is just the FAILURE to disclose ubering, grounds for dismissing claims?


----------



## UberDude2

Bmonaye said:


> I was involved in an accident recently while I was not working. I was in between trips, I had no passenger nor was I en-route to a pick up. My app was off, I was heading to get food for myself when I got in the accident. The accident was deemed to be my fault but my insurance company is trying to pass the liability on to Uber. I don't want to get Uber involved since I was not working. I have provided my weekly trip statement and all trip information as a pdf for the day of the incident.
> 
> How do I show them that I had no activity on my app at the time of the incident?! I'd appreciate any advice, this is real stressful to say the least.


The bigger question is how can they prove YOU WERE WORKING when you had the accident? How could they know or why would you even tell them you are driving for Uber? If you did that's your first mistake.


----------



## UberDude2

Tx rides said:


> This has always been the sticking point for personal insurance. They know all about "fare trolling", which was always a risky phase, especially since it now involves another layer of distraction. Every driver can say "I was just running a personal errand", even if they were circling the most congested block, cruising through a stop light as they monitored their "surge" screen to best position themselves for the next hail. This is why they have declined coverage in so many cases, and is why everyone from property owners to drivers have asked for APP ON coverage. The only ones who have NOT asked for it are the companies drawing profit while the rest of you run around "nekkid"


It's not really a sticking point as some like to make it. If you have a passenger in your car, report it to Uber. If you don't have a passenger in your car report it to your insurance. Simple as that.


----------



## Huberis

observer said:


> This is actually a very good point.
> 
> Is just the FAILURE to disclose ubering, grounds for dismissing claims?


In Pa, a driver is expected to disclose to their personal insurer and provide some form of evidence in the form of written proof of the event having happened. Pa and the PUC have no protocol in place to check or enforce. Uber (I believe) asks their driver for an E - signature via the app...... or you check a box. "Check this box if you disclosed to your personal insurance provider, we will not be asking you again, are ass will be wiped clean and good luck." That kind of thing.

My basic assumption is that livery driving voids personal insurance, forget on app or off, period one two or three.

I am going to share this thread in a couple other places where I believe it is needed or relevant.


----------



## Tx rides

UberDude2 said:


> It's not really a sticking point as some like to make it. If you have a passenger in your car, report it to Uber. If you don't have a passenger in your car report it to your insurance. Simple as that.


No, it is not, for the reasons I already explained. And they are not my reasons, they are industrywide valid insurance concerns.


----------



## Huberis

UberDude2 said:


> The bigger question is how can they prove YOU WERE WORKING when you had the accident? How could they know or why would you even tell them you are driving for Uber? If you did that's your first mistake.


First mistake is assume you will always have control with respect to your personal provider finding out about your livery work. That is not entirely in your control - ever.

I believe the OP states the other person involved in the accident figured out the OP was an Uber driver.

If the OP's provider is even willing to work with them and offer them the chance to prove somehow they weren't on app at the time of the accident, they should feel lucky. I wouldn't expect it. Given that, seems to me, they would have been far better off having disclosed long ago and come to real terms with their provider.

Promoting a culture of keeping personal insurance providers in the dark with the idea that somehow it will all work out, or someday a hybrid policy that meets my budget will arrive, that is not helpful. That practice is bad for the rideshare community. As independent contractors, arguably Uber drivers could take that bull by the horns and gain some sort of leverage to counter Travis and Co.


----------



## ReviTULize

How did Uber even come up?


----------



## Huberis

ReviTULize said:


> How did Uber even come up?


See post #3


----------



## ReviTULize

Huberis said:


> See post #3


Thanks...missed that one


----------



## ReviTULize

No emblems for me.

You get pic of my car and tag. 
Two messages that I'm here.
You can't find me? Then you're not where you dropped the pin


----------



## Huberis

ReviTULize said:


> No emblems for me.
> 
> You get pic of my car and tag.
> Two messages that I'm here.
> You can't find me? Then you're not where you dropped the pin


Still no guarantee your insurance company isn't going to catch up with the activity. Suppose the accident was destined to be a James River claim. Hell of a good chance they will contact personal provider. The accident would still show up on the OP's driving record, the driver's personal insurance company who hear about it.

In some communities, you are expected to show the placard.


----------



## Tx rides

Bmonaye said:


> My app was not on, I had the app turned off. I was not "fare trolling" at the time. How do I show this to my insurance company.


I misread your statement. First of all, the key will be whether your insurance has a solid livery exclusion meaning if you use your vehicle whatsoever for commercial use, your entire policy is void. I do know some policies are that specific. Hopefully yours is not. If they only exclude coverage while you are using it for commercial purposes, then it should not be too hard to show that you were not logged in. In fact, it would be in Uber's best interest to show that you were not logged in.


----------



## UberDude2

PAX=Call Uber
NO PAX=Call your insurance


----------



## cybertec69

OK, your typical Uber driver, with the Uber sign plastered on their window "free advertising for uber", I laugh when I see those guys with their signs plastered pretty much on their forehead. I keep my sign on my passengers seat or door compartment, and only flash it to the pax when I arrive, even though most don't even wait for the sign, knowing I am their ride, and me knowing they are my pax "they stick out like a sore thumb.
Good luck, your insurance company will do it's best not to pay for your damages, and neither will Uber, it does not matter if you did not have any pax in the car, your car was on the road doing FHV work. I believe you are shit out of luck.


----------



## frndthDuvel

Bmonaye said:


> My app was not on, I had the app turned off. I was not "fare trolling" at the time. How do I show this to my insurance company.


How long had your app been off before the accident? How many times did you go on and off the App prior to the accident?
You might want to check out Metromile, chances are you ae going to be in need of a new insurance company. Any other California drivers without MM 3 months after its start up?


----------



## observer

frndthDuvel said:


> How long had your app been off before the accident? How many times did you go on and off the App prior to the accident?
> You might want to check out Metromile, chances are you ae going to be in need of a new insurance company. Any other California drivers without MM 3 months after its start up?


Yupp, every Lyft only driver.


----------



## observer

cybertec69 said:


> OK, your typical Uber driver, with the Uber sign plastered on their window "free advertising for uber", I laugh when I see those guys with their signs plastered pretty much on their forehead. I keep my sign on my passengers seat or door compartment, and only flash it to the pax when I arrive, even though most don't even wait for the sign, knowing I am their ride, and me knowing they are my pax "they stick out like a sore thumb.
> Good luck, your insurance company will do it's best not to pay for your damages, and neither will Uber, it does not matter if you did not have any pax in the car, your car was on the road doing FHV work. I believe you are shit out of luck.


Some states, like California, require trade dress to be up at all times app is on.


----------



## frndthDuvel

observer said:


> Yupp, every Lyft only driver.


Does your insurance company know?
As a LYFT driver you are still better protected under MM than any other insurance company. You do not get any miles paid, but they know you are a TNC driver. Some may point to some vague MM language regarding LYFt, but here in Californian the Insurance Commission does not do vague. Unless MM comes out and definitively that you would not be covered you would be. You just have to pay for those miles as personal miles.


----------



## observer

frndthDuvel said:


> Does your insurance company know?
> As a LYFT driver you are still better protected under MM than any other insurance company. You do not get any miles paid, but they know you are a TNC driver. Some may point to some vague MM language regarding LYFt, but here in Californian the Insurance Commission does not do vague. Unless MM comes out and definitively that you would not be covered you would be. You just have to pay for those miles as personal miles.


MM does NOT cover Lyft at anytime while on app.


----------



## observer

frndthDuvel said:


> Does your insurance company know?
> As a LYFT driver you are still better protected under MM than any other insurance company. You do not get any miles paid, but they know you are a TNC driver. Some may point to some vague MM language regarding LYFt, but here in Californian the Insurance Commission does not do vague. Unless MM comes out and definitively that you would not be covered you would be. You just have to pay for those miles as personal miles.


In MMs own words,


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/597930174085083137


----------



## Huberis

observer said:


> MM does NOT cover Lyft at anytime while on app.


What a cluster**** of confusion, and I am not referring to your post. My guess is that the partnership with Uber is meant to make it less convenient to drive for Lyft. I can't think straight, need food......... Does this force the driver in phase 1 to rely on Lyft for coverage during that period? I had this thought through at one point but it has left me or is buried somewhere. A driver would be forced there into that $2500 deductible.

MM wouldn't have you, Uber wouldn't have you, but James River through Lyft would have you to the tune of a $2500 deductible which is pretty freaking huge considering how expensive repairs can be.

In theory, it isn't wise to be out cruising with the app on. I assume people do it however. If they are out doing errands, they could easily choose to have the app on to interrupt their chores with pay.


----------



## UberDude2

observer said:


> Some states, like California, require trade dress to be up at all times app is on.


No PAX=Nobody knows if you're logged in or not. Nobody knows you don't have your trade dress up.
Report accident to your insurance and don't volunteer unnecessary information.


----------



## observer

UberDude2 said:


> No PAX=Nobody knows if you're logged in or not. Nobody knows you don't have your trade dress up.
> Report accident to your insurance and don't volunteer unnecessary information.


Yepp, lets ask the OP how that is working out for him.


----------



## UberDude2

Huberis said:


> What a cluster**** of confusion, and I am not referring to your post. My guess is that the partnership with Uber is meant to make it less convenient to drive for Lyft. I can't think straight, need food......... Does this force the driver in phase 1 to rely on Lyft for coverage during that period? I had this thought through at one point but it has left me or is buried somewhere. A driver would be forced there into that $2500 deductible.
> 
> MM wouldn't have you, Uber wouldn't have you, but James River through Lyft would have you to the tune of a $2500 deductible which is pretty freaking huge considering how expensive repairs can be.
> 
> In theory, it isn't wise to be out cruising with the app on. I assume people do it however. If they are out doing errands, they could easily choose to have the app on to interrupt their chores with pay.


You're creating unnecessary grey area.
No evidence (trade dress ) no witness (pax) no problem. 
Report to your insurance co.


----------



## Huberis

UberDude2 said:


> No PAX=Nobody knows if you're logged in or not. Nobody knows you don't have your trade dress up.
> Report accident to your insurance and don't volunteer unnecessary information.


That'd be fraud.


----------



## observer

Huberis said:


> What a cluster**** of confusion, and I am not referring to your post. My guess is that the partnership with Uber is meant to make it less convenient to drive for Lyft. I can't think straight, need food......... Does this force the driver in phase 1 to rely on Lyft for coverage during that period? I had this thought through at one point but it has left me or is buried somewhere. A driver would be forced there into that $2500 deductible.
> 
> MM wouldn't have you, Uber wouldn't have you, but James River through Lyft would have you to the tune of a $2500 deductible which is pretty freaking huge considering how expensive repairs can be.
> 
> In theory, it isn't wise to be out cruising with the app on. I assume people do it however. If they are out doing errands, they could easily choose to have the app on to interrupt their chores with pay.


The funny thing is, MM doesn't cover any type of business, other than Uber. I asked about Lyft, package delivery and pizza delivery. 
No on all counts.


----------



## TimFromMA

UberDude2 said:


> No PAX=Nobody knows if you're logged in or not. Nobody knows you don't have your trade dress up.
> Report accident to your insurance and don't volunteer unnecessary information.


That ship has sailed.


----------



## Huberis

observer said:


> The funny thing is, MM doesn't cover any type of business, other than Uber. I asked about Lyft, package delivery and pizza delivery.
> No on all counts.


It isn't funny it is collusion. I am not an Uber driver. I drive taxi. I personally believe it is in both my interest and certainly in the interest of any rideshare driver that if there is to be ridshare, drivers damn sure want choices out there. If you drive for Uber and stick with it head, heartaches and all, it is not in your best interest to undermine your ability to go from one platform to the other. At the very least, you don't want to help create an environment where Lyft is pinched out for this kind of reason.

That would be to your detriment.

Btw: MM doesn't cover ANY KIND of business, they simply tolerant the rideshare activity if it is through Uber.


----------



## Huberis

TimFromMA said:


> That ship has sailed.


Sunk.


----------



## observer

Huberis said:


> It isn't funny it is collusion. I am not an Uber driver. I drive taxi. I personally believe it is in both my interest and certainly in the interest of any rideshare driver that if there is to be ridshare, drivers damn sure want choices out there. If you drive for Uber and stick with it head, heartaches and all, it is not in your best interest to undermine your ability to go from one platform to the other. At the very least, you don't want to help create an environment where Lyft is pinched out for this kind of reason.
> 
> That would be to your detriment.


I'm wondering how legal it is to offer coverage to only one company.


----------



## observer

Huberis said:


> It isn't funny it is collusion. I am not an Uber driver. I drive taxi. I personally believe it is in both my interest and certainly in the interest of any rideshare driver that if there is to be ridshare, drivers damn sure want choices out there. If you drive for Uber and stick with it head, heartaches and all, it is not in your best interest to undermine your ability to go from one platform to the other. At the very least, you don't want to help create an environment where Lyft is pinched out for this kind of reason.
> 
> That would be to your detriment.
> 
> Btw: MM doesn't cover ANY KIND of business, they simply tolerant the rideshare activity if it is through Uber.


True. Didn't think of it this way.


----------



## Huberis

observer said:


> I'm wondering how legal it is to offer coverage to only one company.


Interesting question. No idea. I can think of a bunch of issues with it. It is the driver who is being insured, not the platform.


----------



## TimFromMA

As they are not denying coverage based on race, color, gender, sexual orientation, disability or other protected class, it's perfectly legal.


----------



## observer

Huberis said:


> Interesting question. No idea. I can think of a bunch of issues with it. It is the driver who is being insured, not the platform.


The other thing I noticed, that IS illegal, is that their premiums are based on Zip Code.


----------



## observer

TimFromMA said:


> As they are not denying coverage based on race, color, gender, sexual orientation, disability or other protected class, it's perfectly legal.


Uber drivers should be a protected class.


----------



## Huberis

TimFromMA said:


> As they are not denying coverage based on race, color, gender, sexual orientation, disability or other protected class, it's perfectly legal.


Well, state may take issue with it for the simple idea that it seems to create more gaps, more question marks. Secondly, it could be something that could be challenged on a legislative level. I could be completely off base. It could depend on the way MM is registered. It is quite possible there are guidelines an insurance company is expected to follow. It is possible they may not be allowed to pick and choose between rideshare platforms if it is deemed they are providing an unfair advantage to Uber and thus endangering consumer choice, which is what rideshare is supposed to foment.

That kind of scenario...... I haven't given it any thought, zero research and legalese is a weak spot for me.


----------



## frndthDuvel

observer said:


> In MMs own words,
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/597930174085083137


From a contract CSR's words, not MM! We all know they change with the wind and do not mean much.
Here is the "may not" language from MM. I have no problems trusting the Insurance Commissioner of California and a good lawyer to assure coverage. YMMV What is your choice? To have the same non coverage with another company that you say MM has? I'd rather go to court and argue MM knew what I was doing when they took my per mile insurance. If it is while on a trip, well they will deny coverage and Lyft will pick it up as they would when you have your head in the sand insurance. I had that insurance company and these last 2 months have been stress free insurance wise. And way less sand in my ears. Please note their first concern is that they will not pay for miles driven, not that one IS NOT covered for those miles. The words "may not" are not legal precedents that would sit well with the insurance regulators in the state. Insurance companies in this state have paid punitive judgements in the millions. Does your current insurance company give you even "may not" coverage? To each their own, but the OP is crying the blues when he could have been covered.

https://www.metromile.com/uber/

Q and A at the bottom

*What if I also participate in rideshare services with other providers (e.g. Lyft, Sidecar)?*
Metromile is not currently able to subtract any miles for other TNCs outside of Uber. If you choose to sign up for per-mile insurance as an Uber driver, only miles driven between a ride being accepted and a passenger safely exiting the vehicle with Uber will be subtracted to calculate the remaining personal miles that will be charged on your bill. Also, you may not have coverage while logged into or using another TNC's app.


----------



## UberDude2

Huberis said:


> That'd be fraud.


No evidence (trade dress ) no witness (pax) no problem.


----------



## observer

frndthDuvel said:


> From a contract CSR's words, not MM! We all know they change with the wind and do not mean much.
> Here is the "may not" language from MM. I have no problems trusting the Insurance Commissioner of California and a good lawyer to assure coverage. YMMV What is your choice? To have the same non coverage with another company that you say MM has? I'd rather go to court and argue MM knew what I was doing when they took my per mile insurance. If it is while on a trip, well they will deny coverage and Lyft will pick it up as they would when you have your head in the sand insurance. I had that insurance company and these last 2 months have been stress free insurance wise. And way less sand in my ears. Please note their first concern is that they will not pay for miles driven, not that one IS NOT covered for those miles. The words "may not" are not legal precedents that would sit well with the insurance regulators in the state. Insurance companies in this state have paid punitive judgements in the millions. Does your current insurance company give you even "may not" coverage? To each their own, but the OP is crying the blues when he could have been covered.
> 
> https://www.metromile.com/uber/
> 
> Q and A at the bottom
> 
> *What if I also participate in rideshare services with other providers (e.g. Lyft, Sidecar)?*
> Metromile is not currently able to subtract any miles for other TNCs outside of Uber. If you choose to sign up for per-mile insurance as an Uber driver, only miles driven between a ride being accepted and a passenger safely exiting the vehicle with Uber will be subtracted to calculate the remaining personal miles that will be charged on your bill. Also, you may not have coverage while logged into or using another TNC's app.


What would your lawyer argue?? That "may not" means "will"?


----------



## chi1cabby

UberDude2 said:


> No evidence (trade dress ) no witness (pax) no problem.


In other words:
"UberDude2 Doesn't Abide,
UberDude2 Hides."


----------



## frndthDuvel

observer said:


> What would your lawyer argue?? That "may not" means "will"?


Works for me.

Q Mr. MM witness, are you aware of studies regarding the percentage of drivers who drive for multiple TNC's?
A uhhhhhhhh
Q Why did you not emphatically state there is no coverage if driving LYFT on your home page but used the words "may"?
A uhhhhhhhhhhh
Q are drivers that challenged that they risk using their current insurance becasue you have scared them with a few vague and ambiguous statements?
A Yes
Q Why is there not any specific policy exclusion naming LYFT/Sidecar as Geico has recently mailed out to their customers?
A Uhhhhhhhhhhh
Q Does UBEr have an agreement with you to deny coverage to LYFT drivers?
A uhhhhhhhhh
Q What does it mean "not currently" able to reimburse for LYFT miles? Are you in contacts with LYFT in any states regarding coverage options for them?
A uhhhhhhhhhh
Q Is it better that Drivers continue with their hidden coverage or pay MM and worry about it later?
A Better to stay under cover with your own company and risk getting dropped at any time and no coverage when you need it. What? You think I am going to tell you that the insurance commission will assure I pay?


----------



## observer

frndthDuvel said:


> Works for me.
> 
> Q Mr. MM witness, are you aware of studies regarding the percentage of drivers who drive for multiple TNC's?
> A uhhhhhhhh
> Q Why did you not emphatically state there is no coverage if driving LYFT on your home page but used the words "may"?
> A uhhhhhhhhhhh
> Q are drivers that challenged that they risk using their current insurance becasue you have scared them with a few vague and ambiguous statements?
> A Yes
> Q Why is there not any specific policy exclusion naming LYFT/Sidecar as Geico has recently mailed out to their customers?
> A Uhhhhhhhhhhh
> Q Does UBEr have an agreement with you to deny coverage to LYFT drivers?
> A uhhhhhhhhh
> Q What does it mean "not currently" able to reimburse for LYFT miles? Are you in contacts with LYFT in any states regarding coverage options for them?
> A uhhhhhhhhhh
> Q Is it better that Drivers continue with their hidden coverage or pay MM and worry about it later?
> A Better to stay under cover with your own company and risk getting dropped at any time and no coverage when you need it. What? You think I am going to tell you that the insurance commission will assure I pay?


Yepp, but to me, May not is the same as will not. I do agree though, that if you only Uber, MM is the best way to go.


----------



## observer

UberDude2 said:


> No evidence (trade dress ) no witness (pax) no problem.


Hmmm, sounds like famous mobsters last words...


----------



## chi1cabby

Tim In Cleveland said:


> Fine, but still, contingent insurance is insurance. We have coverage.


*Gap Insurance Unnecessary?*
Tim In Cleveland perhaps you aughtta watch this thread.


----------



## ARIV005

Bmonaye said:


> 1) no commercial insurance, at the time of the incident I was using my car for personal use.
> 
> 2)the other driver told them about my uber sign in the window and they figured to peruse uber to cover it that instead of themselves.


Tell your insurance company you have no idea what the othe driver is talking about... They can't prove it and burn the uber sticker


----------



## chi1cabby

ARIV005 said:


> Tell your insurance company you have no idea what the othe driver is talking about... They can't prove it and burn the uber sticker





Bmonaye said:


> I have provided my weekly trip statement and all trip information as a pdf for the day of the incident.


Did you even read the post?

Maybe "Bury my head in the Uber Insurance sand" is a chronic condition with most Drivers?


----------



## observer

ARIV005 said:


> Tell your insurance company you have no idea what the othe driver is talking about... They can't prove it and burn the uber sticker


How hard would it be to subpoena a persons bank, income tax, or employment records in a fraud case?


----------



## observer

observer said:


> How hard would it be to subpoena a persons bank, income tax, or employment records in a fraud case?


Sorry, employment/"independent contractor" records.


----------



## ARIV005

chi1cabby said:


> Dis you even read the post?
> 
> Maybe "Bury my head in the Uber Insurance sand" is a chronic condition with most Drivers?


Yup, missed it. Reading and drinking.... Not a good mix. Spelling may go out the window too...thx.


----------



## ARIV005

Burn the car and open a separate claim for that. Then buy a bicycle.


----------



## ARIV005

observer said:


> Sorry, employment/"independent contractor" records.


This is all a tough situation... Desperation like this causes me to dodge bullets any way possible.


observer said:


> How hard would it be to subpoena a persons bank, income tax, or employment records in a fraud case?


In a fraud case, not hard at all. Personally, I've learned, the less you say, the better you are.


----------



## Huberis

UberDude2 said:


> No evidence (trade dress ) no witness (pax) no problem.


Suit yourself. May you suffer the draconian regulations heading your way without so much as a whimper. How do you know there wouldn't be third parties on the scene aware of your Ubering?


----------



## UberDude2

observer said:


> How hard would it be to subpoena a persons bank, income tax, or employment records in a fraud case?


VERY VERY HARD


----------



## UberDude2

Huberis said:


> Suit yourself. May you suffer the draconian regulations heading your way without so much as a whimper. How do you know there wouldn't be third parties on the scene aware of your Ubering?


Ha ha, keep reaching. You don't scare me or anyone else who has just a hint of common sense.


----------



## Tx rides

UberDude2 said:


> No evidence (trade dress ) no witness (pax) no problem.


Keep telling yourself that. Click your heels together a few times while you do. It is fraud, and they can fine the hell out of you, after the drop you.


----------



## Tx rides

UberDude2 said:


> Ha ha, keep reaching. You don't scare me or anyone else who has just a hint of common sense.


Actually, most of the Uber/Lyft drivers I've met with common sense have either bought commercial coverage or quit until hybrid is available. They know what they stand to lose, and aren't gambling it.


----------



## Huberis

UberDude2 said:


> Ha ha, keep reaching. You don't scare me or anyone else who has just a hint of common sense.


I am not trying to scare you. You are likely to be your own worst enema. Tx rides sums it up nicely just above. Your assumption is that you will have some sort of control after an accident happens. That is not always going to be the case. Secondly, it is a ******y posture you are taking, a well established fact by this point.


----------



## Tim In Cleveland

Most of these comments are completely worthless and do not help this man. Our dashboard used to show periods where you logged in, then logged off without accepting a ping. Kudos to the person who suggested he contact Uber. They may have those records or may at least be able to provide a statement saying when he was last logged out before the accident and that he wasn't logged in at that time.
As he has app on to app off insurance through Uber, I doubt any insurance company can void a policy simply because he is a livery driver. If they try it, he sues and they WILL lose. They bear NO INCREASED RISK and it's therefore none of their business. No judge is going to put up with their b.s. His occupation is not relevant to this accident.


----------



## Huberis

Tim In Cleveland said:


> Most of these comments are completely worthless and do not help this man. Our dashboard used to show periods where you logged in, then logged off without accepting a ping. Kudos to the person who suggested he contact Uber. They may have those records or may at least be able to provide a statement saying when he was last logged out before the accident and that he wasn't logged in at that time.
> As he has app on to app off insurance through Uber, I doubt any insurance company can void a policy simply because he is a livery driver. If they try it, he sues and they WILL lose. They bear NO INCREASED RISK and it's therefore none of their business. No judge is going to put up with their b.s. His occupation is not relevant to this accident.


You might want to do some research to back that up, then get back to us. Have you spoken to your provider and mad them aware of your activity? I think many people will contest much of those last few sentences.


----------



## Walkersm

Bmonaye This is a tough situation. All you can really do is ask Uber to send you a log of your app logins and log offs. I am not sure they can provide this information as I have never heard of anyone getting it but it is what you will need to show the insurance company. In hearings regulators have said TNC's need to be forthcoming with this information to insurance companies, think this might be the first test of that. Then you need to somehow document exactly what time the accident happened. Then once you do all that successfully guess what they can still deny coverage. No one has ever said you can turn off and turn on personal insurance like a switch. The fact is any commercial use can dis qualify you from any coverage even if you get into an accident taking your family to church if they can prove any commercial use during the time of the insurance contract. All you have going for you is their goodwill to cover you if you can prove something to their satisfaction that the app was off.

But here is the rub. If you do to good of a job proving the app was off and they deny you anyway then Uber can also deny you because the app was off and no coverage from them is valid. I wonder if you might have a better chance of being covered if you just say the app was on during the accident, get denied from the personal insurance and have Uber cover your liability to the other party. You would have to swallow the $1000.00 deductible for your own car but what you have at risk here is coming out of pocket for the other guys car 100% if personal and Uber find a way to deny coverage.

If uber gives you any resistance to providing the login documentation consult a lawyer, they may have to draft a legal request for the data. Hopefully not.

EDIT: Oh yea and layers don't fall out of trees. You will be looking at about a $5,000.00 retainer from most lawyers. Maybe try some legal aid sources if you do not have the funds. Some law school students might find the case interesting.

Good Luck. Please keep us updated.

Always though app on coverage was a good thing but this illustrates there are still some traps to deal with from the drivers perspective.


----------



## MikeB

I'm surprised the OP's ins. co. even talking to him, after finding out that he's driving the vehicle they have a personal policy on as a livery.
Most outfits would drop him on the spot and cancel personal policy.
To poster suggesting above to sue the insurance co. for refusing to cover I with sincerely "Good Luck!". These companies have lawyers on payroll. And to sue ins. co. takes a lot of money. No independent lawyer in his right mind would take on a contingency lawsuit against an ins. co. without serious physical injuries of at fault driver.
Suing an ins. co. at your own experience may coat 5 grand a month and last over a year before it goes to court.
In the court of law insurance company's lawyer will produce a fine print of a personal policy stating that said policy covers exclusively personal use of the vehicle and any commercial use including transporting passengers for hire voids it.
So, the fact that OP's outfit hasn't dropped him yet is amazing already. I seriously doubt he can seriously consider getting any kind of coverage from them.
Suing them is even a bigger mistake. Trying to get some justice may involve filing complaint with the state's department of insurance. But, that is a long story.

To the genius here bravely suggesting: "No trade dress - no evidence of livery", read the rules buddy, no trade dress - $1,000- fine per violation. Cops are everywhere, especially airports. They see you driving Uber when you don't even see them. They see you picking up and dropping off pax, don't kid yourself. Just continue to play with fire, don't suggest pure BS to people on this board. Your insurance co. gets your mileage from Carfax, unless you have cut off your odometer cord. After racking 5000 miles per months Ubering and 60000 miles per year insurance co. suspects you and request you to prove that you aren't Ubering, which you can't and it drops you.
After it dropped you it reports to nationwide insurance information pool called CLUE that it cancelled your personal insurance policy for violating the terms of it by driving livery. Good luck to find and afford a new insurance company to sell you a personal policy.
Uber on!


----------



## UberXTampa

Bmonaye said:


> I was involved in an accident recently while I was not working. I was in between trips, I had no passenger nor was I en-route to a pick up. My app was off, I was heading to get food for myself when I got in the accident. The accident was deemed to be my fault but my insurance company is trying to pass the liability on to Uber. I don't want to get Uber involved since I was not working. I have provided my weekly trip statement and all trip information as a pdf for the day of the incident.
> 
> How do I show them that I had no activity on my app at the time of the incident?! I'd appreciate any advice, this is real stressful to say the least.


Ask the insurance company attorney subpoena uber to provide your activity - according to uber.


----------



## Huberis

MikeB said:


> I'm surprised the OP's ins. co. even talking to him, after finding out that he's driving the vehicle they have a personal policy on as a livery.
> Most outfits would drop him on the spot and cancel personal policy.
> To poster suggesting above to sue the insurance co. for refusing to cover I with sincerely "Good Luck!". These companies have lawyers on payroll. And to sue ins. co. takes a lot of money. No independent lawyer in his right mind would take on a contingency lawsuit against an ins. co. without serious physical injuries of at fault driver.
> Suing an ins. co. at your own experience may coat 5 grand a month and last over a year before it goes to court.
> In the court of law insurance company's lawyer will produce a fine print of a personal policy stating that said policy covers exclusively personal use of the vehicle and any commercial use including transporting passengers for hire voids it.
> So, the fact that OP's outfit hasn't dropped him yet is amazing already. I seriously doubt he can seriously consider getting any kind of coverage from them.
> Suing them is even a bigger mistake. Trying to get some justice may involve filing complaint with the state's department of insurance. But, that is a long story.
> 
> To the genius here bravely suggesting: "No trade dress - no evidence of livery", read the rules buddy, no trade dress - $1,000- fine per violation. Cops are everywhere, especially airports. They see you driving Uber when you don't even see them. They see you picking up and dropping off pax, don't kid yourself. Just continue to play with fire, don't suggest pure BS to people on this board. Your insurance co. gets your mileage from Carfax, unless you have cut off your odometer cord. After racking 5000 miles per months Ubering and 60000 miles per year insurance co. suspects you and request you to prove that you aren't Ubering, which you can't and it drops you.
> After it dropped you it reports to nationwide insurance information pool called CLUE that it cancelled your personal insurance policy for violating the terms of it by driving livery. Good luck to find and afford a new insurance company to sell you a personal policy.
> Uber on!


Couldn't agree more.


----------



## Walkersm

UberXTampa said:


> Ask the insurance company attorney subpoena uber to provide your activity - according to uber.


Problem with that Tampa is that if an insurance company is taking the stance that there was a violation of the coverage that means they have no "Duty to Defend" if no insurance is in place. Meaning they cannot take steps to help the insured until they establish the have a legal duty to defend. Like if they started making promises to the other party that they will cover everything they would be liable. So they can do nothing and say nothing to either help or hurt until it is established they have a contractual duty to defend OP in the accident. It's like an insurance no mans land right now. And the OP has to do it himself, or come out of pocket for his own lawyer to help him persuade the Personal insurance company.

This is precisely why Ubers "Supplemental" lines of insurance are bad for the drivers. No duty to defend exists in supplemental lines of insurance. All they have is a duty to pay. This is also why AB2293 was passed in CA to provide the Duty to defend. But the driver has to be logged into the app for coverage in CA.


----------



## Desert Driver

Bmonaye said:


> I was involved in an accident recently while I was not working. I was in between trips, I had no passenger nor was I en-route to a pick up. My app was off, I was heading to get food for myself when I got in the accident. The accident was deemed to be my fault but my insurance company is trying to pass the liability on to Uber. I don't want to get Uber involved since I was not working. I have provided my weekly trip statement and all trip information as a pdf for the day of the incident.
> 
> How do I show them that I had no activity on my app at the time of the incident?! I'd appreciate any advice, this is real stressful to say the least.


You're about to be dropped by your insurance company. You need to start looking for a new carrier. The technical phrase here is _you're ****ed_.


----------



## frndthDuvel

Huberis said:


> Couldn't agree more.


Actually not. Likely it would be cheaper for your insurance company to pay the claim and THEN drop you. Rather than fight in court that you were not covered. At least in California. Insurance companies have been hit hard many times for trying to weasel out of coverage. You just do not hear about their settling as much. However it is still not going to be fun. Not much can be done by any of us here for the OP,kind of like a Zombie vicitim, except consolation and trying to get anybody who can get MM before they get bit, to get it.


----------



## Walkersm

frndthDuvel said:


> Actually not. Likely it would be cheaper for your insurance company to pay the claim and THEN drop you. Rather than fight in court that you were not covered. At least in California. Insurance companies have been hit hard many times for trying to weasel out of coverage. You just do not hear about their settling as much. However it is still not going to be fun. Not much can be done by any of us here for the OP,kind of like a Zombie vicitim, except consolation and trying to get anybody who can get MM before they get bit, to get it.


That is actually a good point but a lot depends on how much coverage the OP had and how much damage was caused. Even in the Sofia Lui case the personal insurance offered up the drivers maximum coverage $30K (knowing full well he was logged into Uber at the time) but of course that was denied by the Lui family. The Rub here is the more coverage you have and the more damage you do the more likely they will try to deny coverage because it will be all the more they will have to offer up. It's totally backward protection wise. So $30K they might pay out, but get into the $100K realm and a trial might start looking better for them.

So even if OP's was only a minor accident some of the insurance lawyers might want to use this one to establish some case law on the subject of TNC's in CA. As to who pays and what evidence is sufficient to mandate duty to defend. None of which has been established to this date that I know of around TNC's


----------



## observer

All an attorney has to do is ask OP, what were you doing in XYZ area, were you shopping? Were you visiting a relative? Were you going to school. 

It sounds like you already admitted you had been Ubering. So even though you were not at that exact moment on app, you would otherwise not have been there for personal reasons. 

You were in area XYZ ubering.


----------



## Walkersm

observer said:


> All an attorney has to do is ask OP, what were you doing in XYZ area, were you shopping? Were you visiting a relative? Were you going to school.
> 
> It sounds like you already admitted you had been Ubering. So even though you were not at that exact moment on app, you would otherwise not have been there for personal reasons.
> 
> You were in area XYZ ubering.


Yes that is true. The statement will be : If not for commercial activity you would not have been out on the road that evening correct?

And if they have a log of log ins at 6pm and a log out of 8:15pm and an accident at 8:30pm it would be tough to argue otherwise.


----------



## MikeB

UberXTampa said:


> Ask the insurance company attorney subpoena uber to provide your activity - according to uber.


I don't think that an insured get to talk to an insurance company lawyer. Neither do I think that an actual lawyer is involved when a claim adjustor requests an insured to provide proof of not Ubering. And finally, I'm positive that a document form called subpoena is issued by the court and is given to an attorney to fill out exclusively with regard to a specific case filed with that court. No lawsuit - no subpoena.


----------



## observer

Walkersm said:


> Yes that is true. The statement will be : If not for commercial activity you would not have been out on the road that evening correct?
> 
> And if they have a log of log ins at 6pm and a log out of 8:15pm and an accident at 8:30pm it would be tough to argue otherwise.


Damn, we shoulda been lawyers....


----------



## Huberis

frndthDuvel said:


> Actually not. Likely it would be cheaper for your insurance company to pay the claim and THEN drop you. Rather than fight in court that you were not covered. At least in California. Insurance companies have been hit hard many times for trying to weasel out of coverage. You just do not hear about their settling as much. However it is still not going to be fun. Not much can be done by any of us here for the OP,kind of like a Zombie vicitim, except consolation and trying to get anybody who can get MM before they get bit, to get it.


This would not necessarily be weaseling out of coverage if there was fraud.

MM seems better than this. There needs to be other choices. MM still leaves a driver dangling on a string, up a (James) River. The MM plan will make it more difficult for drivers to use Lyft as well. MM is better than personal insurance, which is a horrible thing, but there needs to be other options. The guarantees make it very hard for a driver to drive Lyft as well during those hours....... Personally, I culdn't stand the thought of having to juggle two platforms........ but somehow the ability to chose from two platforms on any given night or at any given moment, that is the closest thing you guys have to being independent contractors in a real way.

You don't want to lose that freedom of choice. - If there are no other viable options for legit insurance, I guess you have to do it. I suppose the other thing that pisses me off (and I'm not even an Uber driver) is that Uber can help me get a car loan at 26%, promise me big money and real insurance, yet if I'd want to be legal, I am stuck with buying yet something in addition from a "partner" that will then make me legal and maybe now they will finally cover my ass, if I get collision, that will only be in effect off app or sitting........ then James River will cover me, but I still need to cough up another grand.

Cry Me a James River. **** Me Running.

The relationship is too enmeshed. Uber leaves you dangling in the wind vulnerable.... now they are going to sell you a remedy through a partner. Is that wise?


----------



## Tx rides

Tim In Cleveland said:


> Most of these comments are completely worthless and do not help this man. Our dashboard used to show periods where you logged in, then logged off without accepting a ping. Kudos to the person who suggested he contact Uber. They may have those records or may at least be able to provide a statement saying when he was last logged out before the accident and that he wasn't logged in at that time.
> As he has app on to app off insurance through Uber, I doubt any insurance company can void a policy simply because he is a livery driver. If they try it, he sues and they WILL lose. They bear NO INCREASED RISK and it's therefore none of their business. No judge is going to put up with their b.s. His occupation is not relevant to this accident.


That's 100% false, Tim. A company can most definitely refuse to insure a vehicle which is used commercially. It depends on legal terms of the policy. Some allow incidental biz use with separate policy, some prohibit all biz use.


----------



## Huberis

Tx rides "I doubt any insurance company can void a policy simply because he is a livery driver. If they try it, he sues and they WILL lose. They bear NO INCREASED RISK and it's therefore none of their business. No judge is going to put up with their b.s. His occupation is not relevant to this accident."

Not sure how a person could spend any kind of time on this forum and make that claim.


----------



## MikeB

frndthDuvel said:


> Actually not. Likely it would be cheaper for your insurance company to pay the claim and THEN drop you. Rather than fight in court that you were not covered. At least in California. Insurance companies have been hit hard many times for trying to weasel out of coverage. You just do not hear about their settling as much. However it is still not going to be fun. Not much can be done by any of us here for the OP,kind of like a Zombie vicitim, except consolation and trying to get anybody who can get MM before they get bit, to get it.


Why didn't Uber admit liability in the case involved death of 6-year old Sophia Liu and injuries to her family members by an Uber driver?
The New Years eve of 2014 case is dragged in San Francisco Superior Court with no end in sight. Do you realize how much money is costs Uber?


----------



## Tx rides

Huberis said:


> Tx rides "I doubt any insurance company can void a policy simply because he is a livery driver. If they try it, he sues and they WILL lose. They bear NO INCREASED RISK and it's therefore none of their business. No judge is going to put up with their b.s. His occupation is not relevant to this accident."
> 
> Not sure how a person could spend any kind of time on this forum and make that claim.


There Also seems to be quite a few drivers on this forum who seem to believe that lawyers fall out of the trees, grab your case gratis, and race off to file papers.


----------



## Walkersm

MikeB said:


> Why didn't Uber admit liability in the case involved death of 6-year old Sophia Liu and injuries to her family members by an Uber driver?
> The New Years eve of 2014 case is dragged in San Francisco Superior Court with no end in sight. Do you realize how much money is costs Uber?


Well in reality that just happens to be the test case to establish the case law that software company does not have to be liable for users of it's platform. If Uber wins that one, and they have a good chance, that will make it's 40 Billion valuation real.


----------



## Huberis

Walkersm said:


> Well in reality that just happens to be the test case to establish the case law that software company does not have to be liable for users of it's platform. If Uber wins that one, and they have a good chance, that will make it's 40 Billion valuation real.


No it wont.


----------



## troubleinrivercity

cybertec69 said:


> OK, your typical Uber driver, with the Uber sign plastered on their window "free advertising for uber", I laugh when I see those guys with their signs plastered pretty much on their forehead. I keep my sign on my passengers seat or door compartment, and only flash it to the pax when I arrive, even though most don't even wait for the sign, knowing I am their ride, and me knowing they are my pax "they stick out like a sore thumb.
> Good luck, your insurance company will do it's best not to pay for your damages, and neither will Uber, it does not matter if you did not have any pax in the car, your car was on the road doing FHV work. I believe you are shit out of luck.


In California where the OP drives the CPUC can collect a $1,000 fine for not displaying the U prominently in the bottom righthand corner of the windshield. Does that make displaying it a winning proposition? I don't know, but only a complete joke of a company would make you sort through a question like this. Don't give him shit for following the law, just.. come on.

Hah, but I see drivers here who plaster the god damned thing FRONT and CENTER in the exact middle of the windshield. Some people are certainly driving for a living because their heads won't work right to do anything else. While most are just denied the opportunity to do more fulfilling work.


----------



## BTCabbie

Huberis said:


> Had you disclosed to your personal insurer you were an active Uber driver? If you failed to disclose....... they may be tough on you as far as covering your claim goes. If all they do is fail to cover your claim, but decide not to drop you, on paper, that would be the lesser of shitty outcomes.
> 
> Thank you for sharing, hopefully everything will work out for you. This is a rather important thread to say the least.


Hum, do you HAVE to disclose uber to your insurance company? I found/felt it as gray area UNLESS this was written when your policy was purchased. Coz otherwise you were considered hiding your status from your insurance company which not very true. For myself, I would crash into uber office and get some sort of log-in/out data which should cover your ass.

Good luck!!


----------



## TimFromMA

Do yourself a favor, get a commercial policy and livery plates.


----------



## UberDude2

Tx rides said:


> Actually, most of the Uber/Lyft drivers I've met with common sense have either bought commercial coverage or quit until hybrid is available. They know what they stand to lose, and aren't gambling it.


Yeah, that's a good idea. Everyone should quit that way the taxi drivers and livery service can thrive once again. No hidden agenda in this thread is there?


----------



## Huberis

UberDude2 said:


> Yeah, that's a good idea. Everyone should quit that way the taxi drivers and livery service can thrive once again. No hidden agenda in this thread is there?


What represents a hidden agenda on his part? It is common sense. You are in California, I assume MM is there, you could be legit. Your posts seem to suggest a hidden agenda. That hidden agenda is to hide what you are doing from your insurance company with the hope of manipulating the system to your favor at the expense of others. Other than that, I don't see any hidden agendas. Your protocol is "No field dress, no witness, no problem", whatever it was you stated....... You are trying to hide what you do. If that isn't a hidden agenda, what is?


----------



## Tim In Cleveland

UberDude2 said:


> Yeah, that's a good idea. Everyone should quit that way the taxi drivers and livery service can thrive once again. No hidden agenda in this thread is there?


Boy, did you hit the nail on the thread. Have you noticed how many posters, who feel a compulsion to comment on every fricking thread even though their comments are irrelevant are NOT DRIVERS for Uber? It's like they get paid by the post. I read their chit and feel like "give me back the seconds of my life I wasted reading that".


----------



## UberDude2

Huberis said:


> What represents a hidden agenda on his part? It is common sense. You are in California, I assume MM is there, you could be legit. Your posts seem to suggest a hidden agenda. That hidden agenda is to hide what you are doing from your insurance company with the hope of manipulating the system to your favor at the expense of others. Other than that, I don't see any hidden agendas. Your protocol is "No field dress, no witness, no problem", whatever it was you stated....... You are trying to hide what you do. If that isn't a hidden agenda, what is?


Scare tactics. That's what this thread was created for. So those with an alternative motive could scare a driver into either not driving anymore or buying your supplemental insurance. Just had to let you know that not everyone was born yesterday.
I don't think everyone here, including yourself, lives by the letter of the law. So to scream fraud is just being a hypocrite. I put my trade dress up when i pick up. I take it down when i drop off. When i'm driving with a PAX Uber insurance is in effect. When i have no PAX my personal insurance is in effect. It's really that simple as much as you and others want to try and make things cloudy. No hidden agenda there. 
OK wasted enough time here. Have a great day...


----------



## Huberis

Tim In Cleveland said:


> Boy, did you hit the nail on the thread. Have you noticed how many posters, who feel a compulsion to comment on every fricking thread even though their comments are irrelevant are NOT DRIVERS for Uber? It's like they get paid by the post. I read their chit and feel like "give me back the seconds of my life I wasted reading that".


Tim, as an UberX driver, your comments concerning the acceptance of personal insurance, is so far off base, I'd have to assume, you have given it zero energy.

If it isn't a problem or grounds for being dropped, have you told your insurer?

Nobody needs to go pack up and quit Uber. If your state doesn't offer hybrid insurance or MM, there is commercial livery insurance. Can't afford commercial livery insurance, tough titties, yes indeed, you should back up and go home, it means you don't have your shit together.

So, have you disclosed? Where did you get your info concerning personal insurance? I doubt it was from your provider.


----------



## Huberis

UberDude2 said:


> Scare tactics. That's what this thread was created for. So those with an alternative motive could scare a driver into either not driving anymore or buying your supplemental insurance. Just had to let you know that not everyone was born yesterday.
> I don't think everyone here, including yourself, lives by the letter of the law. So to scream fraud is just being a hypocrite. I put my trade dress up when i pick up. I take it down when i drop off. When i'm driving with a PAX Uber insurance is in effect. When i have no PAX my personal insurance is in effect. It's really that simple as much as you and others want to try and make things cloudy. No hidden agenda there.
> OK wasted enough time here. Have a great day...


The thread was posted by a drive who seems to be having difficulty after an accident. I can't tell you what kind of emotion you need to be feeling. Call it scare tactics, that would be indicative of someone who is trying to hide what they are doing.

It is common sense. If everything is cool, have you disclosed to your personal insurer? Just be real.


----------



## gman

Bmonaye said:


> 1) no commercial insurance, at the time of the incident I was using my car for personal use.
> 
> 2)the other driver told them about my uber sign in the window and they figured to peruse uber to cover it that instead of themselves.


Well hindsight is 20/20 but here's what you could have done. You preemptively head off this situation by telling your PAX that you were actually not "ubering" at the time, so this is going to go through your personal insurance. You also mention that the uber insurance is crap anyway, so it is going to be beneficial to both of you to run this through your personal insurance with no mention of uber.

All the other party is interested in is getting paid, they don't care if it's your insurance or uber. If you tell them the easiest and quickest way they are going to get their car fixed is through your own insurance then I do not see why this would not work 99.9% of the time. Heck, even if I *was* online or even on the way to pick someone up I would probably employ this strategy.


----------



## MikeB

Tx rides said:


> There Also seems to be quite a few drivers on this forum who seem to believe that lawyers fall out of the trees, grab your case gratis, and race off to file papers.


These drivers are desperados without math skills, responsibility, assets. That's why they drive for Uber and believe in free lawyers.


----------



## Tx rides

UberDude2 said:


> Yeah, that's a good idea. Everyone should quit that way the taxi drivers and livery service can thrive once again. No hidden agenda in this thread is there?


Wow! Is that what I said?


----------



## DrJeecheroo

Tx rides said:


> Wow! Is that what I said?


Is it true txrides? did you say that? (Even though I haven't a clue to what you said) lol, Looks like someone put a spin on whatever you posted.


----------



## Tx rides

MikeB said:


> These drivers are desperados without math skills, responsibility, assets. That's why they drive for Uber and believe in free lawyers.


As I've said before, I only *care* up to the point of (hopefully) encouraging new/naive drivers to know the facts. Those who know and don't care......I care if we have the same personal insurance and they commit fraud. I care if they park in my rented space, otherwise, 2 spits I do not give


----------



## Tx rides

DrJeecheroo said:


> Is it true txrides? did you say that? (Even though I haven't a clue to what you said) lol, Looks like someone put a spin on whatever you posted.


Must have been my voice to text again!!! Lol!!!!


----------



## Huberis

Tx rides said:


> As I've said before, I only *care* up to the point of (hopefully) encouraging new/naive drivers to know the facts. Those who know and don't care......I care if we have the same personal insurance and they commit fraud. I care if they park in my rented space, otherwise, 2 spits I do not give


I just wold like a reasonable playing field. Insurance - commercial livery at the very least exists in every state. Is it expensive, no question. That the insurance industry hasn't kept pace with the rideshare economy has as much or more to do with the T-man's policies than it does with the insurance industry itself. Uber has always tried to rush into a market before either Lyft or legislation. What Dude suggests is self serving and very short sighted. Some of Tim of Cleveland's comments seem completely ignorant, he asserts that as a taxi driver, I'm somehow out of my league and in the woods with respect to what is going on. 70,000 rides plus later...... I don't think so.

I don't work in a town with a medallion system. I stay out of those discussions completely for exactly that reason. I will say this much: Clearly, Uber has the ability and it is their desire to flood any given market to beyond the point of saturation. It is how their model works. That is not good for drivers. If a driver has their shit together and is dedicated, they should be able to swing real coverage that avoids all the well discussed nonsense.

There are several advantages to having real insurance 24/7 where you don't have to hide what you are doing. Municipalities will show you a bit more rspect rather than fear you or relate to you as part of a new shadow economy. Second, if drivers are held to meaningful insurance standards with disclosure, it will slow down and limit the number of drivers in a helpful way.

Uber wants you to believe you are in compliance, they don't want you to disclose, simply because they want cars on the road, the more the merrier, even if it costs you an ability to make a living. If you are a serious Uber driver, looking at it as something you want to do for the long haul....... it is to your advantage to encourage disclosure. You would curb the what is now unlimited supply of fourteen hour a week, cherry picking hobbyists.

That wold cut across Uber's grain and is one way Uber drivers could establish personal agency. In my opinion. That is not meant to create fear so much as keeping it real.


----------



## Sacto Burbs

Dear OP, there are logs in the app itself if you can get to them

Also James River only covers if you are matched with a passenger, they do not cover app on. Tell that to your carrier if it helps.


----------



## Lidman

I think my insurance includes the sacto deluxe protection plan.


----------



## Tx rides

Huberis said:


> I just wold like a reasonable playing field. Insurance - commercial livery at the very least exists in every state. Is it expensive, no question. That the insurance industry hasn't kept pace with the rideshare economy has as much or more to do with the T-man's policies than it does with the insurance industry itself. Uber has always tried to rush into a market before either Lyft or legislation. What Dude suggests is self serving and very short sided. Some of Tim of Cleveland's comments seem completely ignorant, he asserts that as a taxi driver, I'm somehow out of my league and in the woods with respect to what is going on. 70,000 rides plus later...... I don't think so.
> 
> I don't work in a town with a medallion system. I stay out of those discussions completely for exactly that reason. I will say this much: Clearly, Uber has the ability and it is their desire to flood any given market to beyond the point of saturation. It is how their model works. That is not good for drivers. If a driver has their shit together and is dedicated, they should be able to swing real coverage that avoids all the well discussed nonsense.
> 
> There are several advantages to having real insurance 24/7 where you don't have to hide what you are doing. Municipalities will show you a bit more rspect rather than fear you or relate to you as part of a new shadow economy. Second, if drivers are held to meaningful insurance standards with disclosure, it will slow down and limit the number of drivers in a helpful way.
> 
> Uber wants you to believe you are in compliance, they don't want you to disclose, simply because they want cars on the road, the more the merrier, even if it costs you an ability to make a living. If you are a serious Uber driver, looking at it as something you want to do for the long haul....... it is to your advantage to encourage disclosure. You would curb the what is now unlimited supply of fourteen hour a week, cherry picking hobbyists.
> 
> That wold cut across Uber's grain and is one way Uber drivers could establish personal agency. In my opinion. That is not meant to create fear so much as keeping it real.


Agreed...agreed..and then some...
But not so much on "ride share" differences. I read this morning 40 percent of Uber drivers are full time. You and I see these folks, we know they run well beyond 10 hour days. That's not "sharing a ride", it is full time commercial service. Carriers know this. That's why the ONLY sure way to prevent fraud or claims agains the wrong carrier is a "4th party app" which sits between both To accurately report user status and miles.


----------



## Drivingmecrazy

observer said:


> The other thing I noticed, that IS illegal, is that their premiums are based on Zip Code.


Definitely not. All insurers adjust their rate based on where you live. Higher crime rate, higher rate. Haven't you ever moved and had your insurance rate adjust?


----------



## observer

Drivingmecrazy said:


> Definitely not. All insurers adjust their rate based on where you live. Higher crime rate, higher rate. Haven't you ever moved and had your insurance rate adjust?


No, redlining was outlawed in California several years ago, let me look up the law and I'll post it in a bit.


----------



## observer

Drivingmecrazy said:


> Definitely not. All insurers adjust their rate based on where you live. Higher crime rate, higher rate. Haven't you ever moved and had your insurance rate adjust?


It was prop 103,

http://www.nbc-2.com/story/5295850/...ns-of-drivers-insurer-to-comply-with-prop-103


----------



## Guest

Bmonaye said:


> meaning? How so, I am covered either way.


Uber lies to everyone, this is the problem. If you had the sticker in your window, they assume you are working, they will pass it off back and forth to Uber's insurance and yours. You have been Ubered in the worst way.


----------



## gman

uberstatecollege said:


> Uber lies to everyone, this is the problem. If you had the sticker in your window, they assume you are working, they will pass it off back and forth to Uber's insurance and yours. You have been Ubered in the worst way.


Like I said, simply tell the other person that the Uber insurance is shit, and that the only way they are going to get paid quickly is if it goes through your personal insurance with no mention of Uber.

Problem solved.


----------



## Guest

gman said:


> Like I said, simply tell the other person that the Uber insurance is shit, and that the only way they are going to get paid quickly is if it goes through your personal insurance with no mention of Uber.
> 
> Problem solved.


That does solve the problem
Except I'm making income based on lies?


----------



## gman

uberstatecollege said:


> That does solve the problem
> Except I'm making income based on lies?


In the OP's case it would not be a lie, as he was indeed not online at the time of the accident. However even if I was online I would most likely employ this strategy. Hey we have to do the best we can with the cards that have been dealt us.


----------



## Huberis

gman said:


> In the OP's case it would not be a lie, as he was indeed not online at the time of the accident. However even if I was online I would most likely employ this strategy. Hey we have to do the best we can with the cards that have been dealt us.


"Sometimes nothing is a pretty good hand." What a shit show.

Uberstatecollege is in Pa, a state where disclosure is mandatory. You are expected to have it in writing that you discussed the activity with your provider. As a card shark on the other side of the country, what are your thoughts? Would you care to guess how many drivers are out of compliance? Is the situation just part of the reality of rideshare? Should the pubic be expected to be cool with it?


----------



## gman

Huberis said:


> "Sometimes nothing is a pretty good hand." What a shit show.
> 
> Uberstatecollege is in Pa, a state where disclosure is mandatory. You are expected to have it in writing that you discussed the activity with your provider. As a card shark on the other side of the country, what are your thoughts? Would you care to guess how many drivers are out of compliance? Is the situation just part of the reality of rideshare? Should the pubic be expected to be cool with it?


I've already stated my thoughts, you can take them or leave them, it's simple really.

Here's another thought, don't get in an accident in the first place - problem solved again! lol Seriously, everyone should be honest with themselves as to their driving ability. I would suggest if you have ever, even once in your driving career, been involved in an at fault accident then this gig is not for you. If on the other hand you are a great driver to begin with, and are really focused and on your game when out driving for Uber, then the odds of a serious at fault accident are about the same as being hit by lightning.


----------



## Huberis

gman said:


> I've already stated my thoughts, you can take them or leave them, it's simple really.
> 
> Here's another thought, don't get in an accident in the first place - problem solved again! lol Seriously, everyone should be honest with themselves as to their driving ability. I would suggest if you have ever, even once in your driving career, been involved in an at fault accident then this gig is not for you. If on the other hand you are a great driver to begin with, and are really focused and on your game when out driving for Uber, then the odds of a serious at fault accident are about the same as being hit by lightning.


Have you gotten the lightning strike out of the way? Shark attack maybe?
gman So he shouldn't feel a need to comply by disclosure, say **** you to a simply requirement? I haven't seen a direct comment on that.


----------



## Older Chauffeur

observer said:


> It was prop 103,
> 
> http://www.nbc-2.com/story/5295850/...ns-of-drivers-insurer-to-comply-with-prop-103


From the same article:
Prior to State Farm's announcement, the Auto Club of Southern California and USAA lowered rates and reconstituted their pricing system to lessen the impact of ZIP Code and focus more on drivers' records, miles driven annually and years licensed. Under Proposition 103, these three factors must play a greater role in pricing than other commonly used factors such as a motorist's ZIP code or marital status.

So, your zip code still plays a part in risk assessment .


----------



## observer

Older Chauffeur said:


> From the same article:
> Prior to State Farm's announcement, the Auto Club of Southern California and USAA lowered rates and reconstituted their pricing system to lessen the impact of ZIP Code and focus more on drivers' records, miles driven annually and years licensed. Under Proposition 103, these three factors must play a greater role in pricing than other commonly used factors such as a motorist's ZIP code or marital status.
> 
> So, your zip code still plays a part in risk assessment .


Yes, but if everything else is the same except one zip code is two miles away from the other. They are in effect charging by where you live and not the other factors.

When I checked the premiums everything i inputted was exactly the same. The only difference was the zip code.


----------



## Older Chauffeur

Perhaps the loss experience of all insurers, or that one company, has been higher in one zip code over the other. They are allowed to manage risk, they just can't put zip code at the top of the list.


----------



## Tx rides

gman said:


> Like I said, simply tell the other person that the Uber insurance is shit, and that the only way they are going to get paid quickly is if it goes through your personal insurance with no mention of Uber.
> 
> Problem solved.


I hope that you are joking. That can result in hefty fines, even jail. Is this gig worth it to you ? I know many people seem to think this will not be discovered. I cannot stress enough to you guys: this has serious attention at very high levels across the industry. The data analytics involved in uptic detection is very impressive. They are not in business to pay out, particularly to anyone claiming personal use when they are running livery.


----------



## Lidman

I think "gmens avatar pretty much sums up ubers attitude on insurance. They want the driver to lie to their insurance company and hope for the best.


----------



## Tx rides

Lidman said:


> I think "gmens avatar pretty much sums up ubers attitude on insurance. They want the driver to lie to their insurance company and hope for the best.


The lightening strike analogy...sigh. I would say that the odds of a baby being kidnapped from my car while I run in to the post office are pretty slim, but I wouldn't leave a baby in my car nonetheless.


----------



## Tx rides

Huberis said:


> I just wold like a reasonable playing field. Insurance - commercial livery at the very least exists in every state. Is it expensive, no question. That the insurance industry hasn't kept pace with the rideshare economy has as much or more to do with the T-man's policies than it does with the insurance industry itself. Uber has always tried to rush into a market before either Lyft or legislation. What Dude suggests is self serving and very short sighted. Some of Tim of Cleveland's comments seem completely ignorant, he asserts that as a taxi driver, I'm somehow out of my league and in the woods with respect to what is going on. 70,000 rides plus later...... I don't think so.
> 
> I don't work in a town with a medallion system. I stay out of those discussions completely for exactly that reason. I will say this much: Clearly, Uber has the ability and it is their desire to flood any given market to beyond the point of saturation. It is how their model works. That is not good for drivers. If a driver has their shit together and is dedicated, they should be able to swing real coverage that avoids all the well discussed nonsense.
> 
> There are several advantages to having real insurance 24/7 where you don't have to hide what you are doing. Municipalities will show you a bit more rspect rather than fear you or relate to you as part of a new shadow economy. Second, if drivers are held to meaningful insurance standards with disclosure, it will slow down and limit the number of drivers in a helpful way.
> 
> Uber wants you to believe you are in compliance, they don't want you to disclose, simply because they want cars on the road, the more the merrier, even if it costs you an ability to make a living. If you are a serious Uber driver, looking at it as something you want to do for the long haul....... it is to your advantage to encourage disclosure. You would curb the what is now unlimited supply of fourteen hour a week, cherry picking hobbyists.
> 
> That wold cut across Uber's grain and is one way Uber drivers could establish personal agency. In my opinion. That is not meant to create fear so much as keeping it real.


Some of these guys keep accusing me of a hidden agenda to scare drivers. I AM SO BUSTED!! Yes!! I can convince all Uber drivers to quit! Yes!!! Then I can staff more offshift to field 2am drunk ride requests from people who are too cheap to to pay our rates and hang up. And for those who WILL pay our rates, the Offshift can clean their fluids from the seats and carpet. Such a brilliant plan, I really didn't expect anyone to catch on. Darn. Foiled again . Back to the drawing board.


----------



## Huberis

Tx rides said:


> I hope that you are joking. That can result in hefty fines, even jail. Is this gig worth it to you ? I know many people seem to think this will not be discovered. I cannot stress enough to you guys: this has serious attention at very high levels across the industry. The data analytics involved in uptic detection is very impressive. They are not in business to pay out, particularly to anyone claiming personal use when they are running livery.


The insurance companies have buildings full of lawyers. That guys comments make him a perfect poster boy as to why local municipalities will slowly start cracking down on Uber. I couldn't believe his comments to be serious, yet mostly, they were.


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA

Providing your insurance company with any evidence that you were Ubering is a HUGE mistake. Once you turn your app off, you are in most cases driving without insurance.

Please read the following article for carrification.

http://insurancethoughtleadership.c...al-model-for-all-states/#sthash.nNvUCspl.dpbs


----------



## Huberis

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> Providing your insurance company with any evidence that you were Ubering is a HUGE mistake. Once you turn your app off, you are in most cases driving without insurance.
> 
> Please read the following article for carrification.
> 
> http://insurancethoughtleadership.c...al-model-for-all-states/#sthash.nNvUCspl.dpbs


No shit. That is kind of the point many of us have been making -that when you turn THE APP OFF - at that point you don't have shit for insurance, it was invalidated. The difference is in the analysis. You seem to be in the obfuscation camp. Others seem to feel it's a sign of the times, it's time get compatible insurance.


----------



## RockinEZ

I know it is too late, but....
Good reason to use Metromile if you can get it in your state.
It is insurance that links into the Uber database and knows when you are signed on, and when you are not.
You only pay for the miles you drive.
How good is it? I haven't had an accident, so I don't know yet.......
It is less expensive than Wawanesa for me.


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA

Huberis said:


> No shit. That is kind of the point many of us have been making -that when you turn THE APP OFF - at that point you don't have shit for insurance, it was invalidated. The difference is in the analysis. You seem to be in the obfuscation camp. Others seem to feel it's a sign of the times, it's time get compatible insurance.


I don't know what the law is in Pennsylvania, but the OP is in Cali. He was getting advice to submit documents from Uber to his personal insurance. I think giving those documents to his insurance will give the insurance company evidence to deny his claim. I'm not saying they will deny coverage, but they definitely could.

There are so many insurance gaps, and the OP was definitely operating without insurance coverage.


----------



## Huberis

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> I don't know what the law is in Pennsylvania, but the OP is in Cali. He was getting advice to submit documents from Uber to his personal insurance. I think giving those documents to his insurance will give the insurance company evidence to deny his claim. I'm not saying they will deny coverage, but they definitely could.
> 
> There are so many insurance gaps, and the OP was definitely operating without insurance coverage.


Ok, fair enough, that is a little bit better I suppose.


----------



## TomP

Hi Bmonaye,

You have such an interesting case (although I am sure it is distressing to you) that I and am sure many others would like to know how it turned out. Did Uber provide you with your Partner App Login Activity Record for the day? Did you supply it to your insurance company? I know some posters to the forum suggested you supply it and some advised against it. What is the latest?


----------



## RockinEZ

I have to ask where did you get the freaking Uber sign. 
In two years of driving part time for Uber in San Diego, I have never been offered an Uber trade dress sign. I see Uber cars in Pacific Beach with illuminated trade dress Uber signs.
Where the heck are these coming from? eBay?


----------



## Guest

RockinEZ said:


> I have to ask where did you get the freaking Uber sign.
> In two years of driving part time for Uber in San Diego, I have never been offered an Uber trade dress sign. I see Uber cars in Pacific Beach with illuminated trade dress Uber signs.
> Where the heck are these coming from? eBay?


In Pennsylvania, we are required to have them on our cars.


----------



## RockinEZ

uberstatecollege said:


> In Pennsylvania, we are required to have them on our cars.


Does Uber provide a sign? 
I see all kinds of LED lighted signs on eBay for $45. 
I am not all that excited about spending money to provide a sign for a company that is clearly taking advantage of me. 
I can see printing a sign on my laser printer, other than that I think Uber is pushing too far......


----------



## observer

RockinEZ said:


> Does Uber provide a sign?
> I see all kinds of LED lighted signs on eBay for $45.
> I am not all that excited about spending money to provide a sign for a company that is clearly taking advantage of me.
> I can see printing a sign on my laser printer, other than that I think Uber is pushing too far......


Those illuminated signs may be illegal in some states.

Most drivers print then laminate the sign.


----------



## Walkersm

RockinEZ said:


> Does Uber provide a sign?
> I see all kinds of LED lighted signs on eBay for $45.
> I am not all that excited about spending money to provide a sign for a company that is clearly taking advantage of me.
> I can see printing a sign on my laser printer, other than that I think Uber is pushing too far......


In the early days of Uber they gave out the lighted signs in some markets. Some were deemed a fire hazard as they gave of sparks at the connection at the sign. Some other folks got tickets for having a blue light facing forward. It was supposed to illuminate white but it looks more whitish blue. Cops see blue.

The ones you see on Ebay may actually be a new design just made to copy the original. I was wondering when someone would start making them up. They are not official trade dress, but they sure do look cool at night and make it easy for folks to spot ya.

The printed sign is at least in CA official trade dress. Uber does not authorize the LED signs any longer. It's just a personal preference if you use it or buy one.


----------



## Toby

UberDude2 said:


> It's not really a sticking point as some like to make it. If you have a passenger in your car, report it to Uber. If you don't have a passenger in your car report it to your insurance. Simple as that.


You're not clear on the concept. Uber requires its drivers to report it to their personal insurance first. They will leave you in a lurch and laugh about it over muffins and starbucks on their cigarette break. I can't wait until Uber goes IPO, this line of thinking is gonna lead to overwhelming insurance debt and make me $$$, sell that shit short i tell you.



ReviTULize said:


> No emblems for me.
> 
> You get pic of my car and tag.
> Two messages that I'm here.
> You can't find me? Then you're not where you dropped the pin


And when you are required by law to have an emblem? Which you will eventually...ya gonna ignore it like you likely are doing with your insurance?



Tx rides said:


> I misread your statement. First of all, the key will be whether your insurance has a solid livery exclusion meaning if you use your vehicle whatsoever for commercial use, your entire policy is void. I do know some policies are that specific. Hopefully yours is not. If they only exclude coverage while you are using it for commercial purposes, then it should not be too hard to show that you were not logged in. In fact, it would be in Uber's best interest to show that you were not logged in.


Bwahahaha! you think Uber wants to keep a driver who caused an accident and has to face the reality of insurance that they led him to believe was legal? You forgot that they are already planning on replacing you with robots.



UberDude2 said:


> PAX=Call Uber
> NO PAX=Call your insurance


and your insurance investigates and finds out your uber. They try to contact uber who does not reply. Then what?



cybertec69 said:


> OK, your typical Uber driver, with the Uber sign plastered on their window "free advertising for uber", I laugh when I see those guys with their signs plastered pretty much on their forehead. I keep my sign on my passengers seat or door compartment, and only flash it to the pax when I arrive, even though most don't even wait for the sign, knowing I am their ride, and me knowing they are my pax "they stick out like a sore thumb.
> Good luck, your insurance company will do it's best not to pay for your damages, and neither will Uber, it does not matter if you did not have any pax in the car, your car was on the road doing FHV work. I believe you are shit out of luck.


honest question...are you required by law to label your car as uber to the general public?



UberDude2 said:


> No PAX=Nobody knows if you're logged in or not. Nobody knows you don't have your trade dress up.
> Report accident to your insurance and don't volunteer unnecessary information.


Yeah, commit insurance fraud so if there's an accident and there are injuries that require medical bills to be paid, you can sleep at night knowing you tried to cheat the system so that piece if shit Travis could buy another bentley and the injured parties are screwed, yeah, that's what you do. You are the reason Uber will fail.



observer said:


> The funny thing is, MM doesn't cover any type of business, other than Uber. I asked about Lyft, package delivery and pizza delivery.
> No on all counts.


Trust a company, let alone an insurance company, that only works with uber? probably started by one of Travis' floozies.


----------



## UberThis

Bmonaye said:


> I was involved in an accident recently while I was not working. I was in between trips, I had no passenger nor was I en-route to a pick up. My app was off, I was heading to get food for myself when I got in the accident. The accident was deemed to be my fault but my insurance company is trying to pass the liability on to Uber. I don't want to get Uber involved since I was not working. I have provided my weekly trip statement and all trip information as a pdf for the day of the incident.
> 
> How do I show them that I had no activity on my app at the time of the incident?! I'd appreciate any advice, this is real stressful to say the least.


There's an attorney asking what type of help drivers may want on another thread. Perhaps see if she has any input. Her name says Heather J, Esq.

You'll need to scroll way down to find her postings.

https://uberpeople.net/threads/help...oing-a-fare-and-no-word-from-uber.5418/page-5


----------



## Toby

frndthDuvel said:


> From a contract CSR's words, not MM! We all know they change with the wind and do not mean much.
> Here is the "may not" language from MM. I have no problems trusting the Insurance Commissioner of California and a good lawyer to assure coverage. YMMV What is your choice? To have the same non coverage with another company that you say MM has? I'd rather go to court and argue MM knew what I was doing when they took my per mile insurance. If it is while on a trip, well they will deny coverage and Lyft will pick it up as they would when you have your head in the sand insurance. I had that insurance company and these last 2 months have been stress free insurance wise. And way less sand in my ears. Please note their first concern is that they will not pay for miles driven, not that one IS NOT covered for those miles. The words "may not" are not legal precedents that would sit well with the insurance regulators in the state. Insurance companies in this state have paid punitive judgements in the millions. Does your current insurance company give you even "may not" coverage? To each their own, but the OP is crying the blues when he could have been covered.
> 
> https://www.metromile.com/uber/
> 
> Q and A at the bottom
> 
> *What if I also participate in rideshare services with other providers (e.g. Lyft, Sidecar)?*
> Metromile is not currently able to subtract any miles for other TNCs outside of Uber. If you choose to sign up for per-mile insurance as an Uber driver, only miles driven between a ride being accepted and a passenger safely exiting the vehicle with Uber will be subtracted to calculate the remaining personal miles that will be charged on your bill. Also, you may not have coverage while logged into or using another TNC's app.


Good god, this is the best insurance for uber drivers? Most of the blame is on those Uber ****s at their corporate office but you drivers should stand up for yourselves already because you are the ones taking the risk of ruin. Do you fail to realize you are risking financial ruin? Uber will fail as a company eventually but Travis and his buds will walk away gold plated toilet paper and laugh over $300 scotch how much fun they had while thousands of former "partners" are left destitute.


----------



## Toby

observer said:


> The other thing I noticed, that IS illegal, is that their premiums are based on Zip Code.


That is nowhere near illegal


----------



## Toby

UberDude2 said:


> No evidence (trade dress ) no witness (pax) no problem.


So you are not aware that insurance companies have investigators working for them? You believe that they believe whatever you tell them? Uber love s you.


----------



## Toby

frndthDuvel said:


> Works for me. More likely scenario...
> 
> Q Mr. MM witness, are you aware of studies regarding the percentage of drivers who drive for multiple TNC's?
> A I am not because you did not submit those studies as evidence. If you did, we would have dissected them appropriately.
> Q Why did you not emphatically state there is no coverage if driving LYFT on your home page but used the words "may"?
> A Because the law allows me to.
> Q are drivers that challenged that they risk using their current insurance becasue you have scared them with a few vague and ambiguous statements?
> A You'll need to ask your question again as it is not spoken in a complete sentence. If you are asking what it MAY appear you are, the answer is no.
> Q Why is there not any specific policy exclusion naming LYFT/Sidecar as Geico has recently mailed out to their customers?
> A That's a nonsensical question.
> Q Does UBEr have an agreement with you to deny coverage to LYFT drivers?
> A None I'm aware of
> Q What does it mean "not currently" able to reimburse for LYFT miles? Are you in contacts with LYFT in any states regarding coverage options for them?
> A You'll have to ask the sales staff
> Q Is it better that Drivers continue with their hidden coverage or pay MM and worry about it later?
> A That's up to the customer to decide.


----------



## Toby

ARIV005 said:


> Tell your insurance company you have no idea what the othe driver is talking about... They can't prove it and burn the uber sticker


The insurance company is not operating in a court of law, they don't have to prove anything to you. They can deny your claim because their investigator found someone who said they saw you having a beer at a picnic and the burden of proof will be on you to disprove to them you were not DUI.


----------



## RockinEZ

observer said:


> The funny thing is, MM doesn't cover any type of business, other than Uber. I asked about Lyft, package delivery and pizza delivery.
> No on all counts.


Metromile does not cover Uber. What Metromile does is connect to the Uber database and not charge you for the miles you are covered by Uber's insurance. That saves the Metromile customer money. Metromile will not cancel you if you drive for Uber, and that is something. Metromile is in negations with Lyft to obtain data from their database so they can not charge you for miles that Lyft is covering you. 
Metromile does not cover any miles after you accept a ping from a TNC. 
What Metromile does is save you money by not charging you for miles covered under TNC companies they have relationships that allow them to see when you are driving for a TNC. 
So far only Uber has decided to cooperate with Metromile. 
Lyft may, or may not cooperate with Metromile depending on the ongoing negations between Metromile and Lyft.


----------



## Toby

UberDude2 said:


> VERY VERY HARD


Do you work for the Uber Soylent Green Marketing Division? They will subpoena your college transcripts if they want to.


----------



## Toby

UberDude2 said:


> Ha ha, keep reaching. You don't scare me or anyone else who has just a hint of common sense.


Not scared? Write a letter to your insurance company informing them you are ubering. Post the response here. If you won't, you'd be smart to be scared.


----------



## Toby

Tim In Cleveland said:


> Most of these comments are completely worthless and do not help this man. Our dashboard used to show periods where you logged in, then logged off without accepting a ping. Kudos to the person who suggested he contact Uber. They may have those records or may at least be able to provide a statement saying when he was last logged out before the accident and that he wasn't logged in at that time.
> As he has app on to app off insurance through Uber, I doubt any insurance company can void a policy simply because he is a livery driver. If they try it, he sues and they WILL lose. They bear NO INCREASED RISK and it's therefore none of their business. No judge is going to put up with their b.s. His occupation is not relevant to this accident.


You are spewing harmful bullshit and convincing yourself that your lala land is reality. Your insurance company will drop you like an anvil as soon as they find out you drive for uber. Contact your insurance company, tell them you drive for uber and post their response here.


----------



## Toby

MikeB said:


> I'm surprised the OP's ins. co. even talking to him, after finding out that he's driving the vehicle they have a personal policy on as a livery.
> Most outfits would drop him on the spot and cancel personal policy.
> To poster suggesting above to sue the insurance co. for refusing to cover I with sincerely "Good Luck!". These companies have lawyers on payroll. And to sue ins. co. takes a lot of money. No independent lawyer in his right mind would take on a contingency lawsuit against an ins. co. without serious physical injuries of at fault driver.
> Suing an ins. co. at your own experience may coat 5 grand a month and last over a year before it goes to court.
> In the court of law insurance company's lawyer will produce a fine print of a personal policy stating that said policy covers exclusively personal use of the vehicle and any commercial use including transporting passengers for hire voids it.
> So, the fact that OP's outfit hasn't dropped him yet is amazing already. I seriously doubt he can seriously consider getting any kind of coverage from them.
> Suing them is even a bigger mistake. Trying to get some justice may involve filing complaint with the state's department of insurance. But, that is a long story.
> 
> To the genius here bravely suggesting: "No trade dress - no evidence of livery", read the rules buddy, no trade dress - $1,000- fine per violation. Cops are everywhere, especially airports. They see you driving Uber when you don't even see them. They see you picking up and dropping off pax, don't kid yourself. Just continue to play with fire, don't suggest pure BS to people on this board. Your insurance co. gets your mileage from Carfax, unless you have cut off your odometer cord. After racking 5000 miles per months Ubering and 60000 miles per year insurance co. suspects you and request you to prove that you aren't Ubering, which you can't and it drops you.
> After it dropped you it reports to nationwide insurance information pool called CLUE that it cancelled your personal insurance policy for violating the terms of it by driving livery. Good luck to find and afford a new insurance company to sell you a personal policy.
> Uber on!


Thank the lord, someone to talk some sense into the delusions that are uber. If any uber driver ignores your advice, let's hope no innocent people are hurt and not covered because peeps lie to themselves about the reality of how insurance works.


----------



## Toby

Walkersm said:


> Problem with that Tampa is that if an insurance company is taking the stance that there was a violation of the coverage that means they have no "Duty to Defend" if no insurance is in place. Meaning they cannot take steps to help the insured until they establish the have a legal duty to defend. Like if they started making promises to the other party that they will cover everything they would be liable. So they can do nothing and say nothing to either help or hurt until it is established they have a contractual duty to defend OP in the accident. It's like an insurance no mans land right now. And the OP has to do it himself, or come out of pocket for his own lawyer to help him persuade the Personal insurance company.
> 
> This is precisely why Ubers "Supplemental" lines of insurance are bad for the drivers. No duty to defend exists in supplemental lines of insurance. All they have is a duty to pay. This is also why AB2293 was passed in CA to provide the Duty to defend. But the driver has to be logged into the app for coverage in CA.


thank you, that explains a bunch.


----------



## Toby

frndthDuvel said:


> Actually not. Likely it would be cheaper for your insurance company to pay the claim and THEN drop you. Rather than fight in court that you were not covered. At least in California. Insurance companies have been hit hard many times for trying to weasel out of coverage. You just do not hear about their settling as much. However it is still not going to be fun. Not much can be done by any of us here for the OP,kind of like a Zombie vicitim, except consolation and trying to get anybody who can get MM before they get bit, to get it.


Only if the insurance company thought there was a legit case against them (which there is not in this case) and/or they felt the person suing them them had at least 6 figures backing them. Otherwise, they will squash this case like a mosquito.


----------



## Toby

UberDude2 said:


> Scare tactics. That's what this thread was created for. So those with an alternative motive could scare a driver into either not driving anymore or buying your supplemental insurance. Just had to let you know that not everyone was born yesterday.
> I don't think everyone here, including yourself, lives by the letter of the law. So to scream fraud is just being a hypocrite. I put my trade dress up when i pick up. I take it down when i drop off. When i'm driving with a PAX Uber insurance is in effect. When i have no PAX my personal insurance is in effect. It's really that simple as much as you and others want to try and make things cloudy. No hidden agenda there.
> OK wasted enough time here. Have a great day...


Thanks, I will be using this quote often.


----------



## Toby

Tim In Cleveland said:


> Boy, did you hit the nail on the thread. Have you noticed how many posters, who feel a compulsion to comment on every fricking thread even though their comments are irrelevant are NOT DRIVERS for Uber? It's like they get paid by the post. I read their chit and feel like "give me back the seconds of my life I wasted reading that".


Pretty typical that the guy who will not respond to any questions about his posts. He only wants to read his own posts and live in his fantasy world where he makes the pretend rules of how the world works. Probably cheered when Farmer picked Manziel.



UberDude2 said:


> Yeah, that's a good idea. Everyone should quit that way the taxi drivers and livery service can thrive once again. No hidden agenda in this thread is there?


You are disaster in the waiting. Please, don't drive like you debate.



UberDude2 said:


> Scare tactics. That's what this thread was created for. So those with an alternative motive could scare a driver into either not driving anymore or buying your supplemental insurance. Just had to let you know that not everyone was born yesterday.
> I don't think everyone here, including yourself, lives by the letter of the law. So to scream fraud is just being a hypocrite. I put my trade dress up when i pick up. I take it down when i drop off. When i'm driving with a PAX Uber insurance is in effect. When i have no PAX my personal insurance is in effect. It's really that simple as much as you and others want to try and make things cloudy. No hidden agenda there.
> OK wasted enough time here. Have a great day...


So simple, tell your insurance company you drive for uber. That's as simple as can be.



gman said:


> Well hindsight is 20/20 but here's what you could have done. You preemptively head off this situation by telling your PAX that you were actually not "ubering" at the time, so this is going to go through your personal insurance. You also mention that the uber insurance is crap anyway, so it is going to be beneficial to both of you to run this through your personal insurance with no mention of uber.
> 
> All the other party is interested in is getting paid, they don't care if it's your insurance or uber. If you tell them the easiest and quickest way they are going to get their car fixed is through your own insurance then I do not see why this would not work 99.9% of the time. Heck, even if I *was* online or even on the way to pick someone up I would probably employ this strategy.


more pretend fantasy insurance scenarios driving uber. If I'm the other driver, I'm not lying to my insurance company and getting dropped by them to save your uninsured ass.



gman said:


> I've already stated my thoughts, you can take them or leave them, it's simple really.
> 
> Here's another thought, don't get in an accident in the first place - problem solved again! lol Seriously, everyone should be honest with themselves as to their driving ability. I would suggest if you have ever, even once in your driving career, been involved in an at fault accident then this gig is not for you. If on the other hand you are a great driver to begin with, and are really focused and on your game when out driving for Uber, then the odds of a serious at fault accident are about the same as being hit by lightning.


ugh, famous last words. please don't hurt anybody.


----------



## Guest

Toby said:


> honest question...are you required by law to label your car as uber to the general public?


In Pennsylvsnia , yes, also, if you are cruising around looking for potential customers, had an accident, isn't that considered working?


----------



## Walkersm

Toby said:


> honest question...are you required by law to label your car as uber to the general public?


In CA there is a law that states TNC vehicle must have a trade dress of a sign in the lower windshield at all times they are providing service. However the PUC also said it can be removable. This kind of defeats the purpose of an identifiable "trade dress" like taxis have with a color scheme or limos have with a permanent number on the bumpers but they got it past the PUC somehow.


----------



## DrJeecheroo

Toby said:


> You are disaster in the waiting. Please, don't drive like you debate.


Why? What do you think will happen?


----------



## DrJeecheroo

Toby said:


> Bwahahaha! you think Uber wants to keep a driver who caused an accident and has to face the reality of insurance that they led him to believe was legal? You forgot that they are already planning on replacing you with robots.


Those are the kind that uber loves the most.


----------



## ReviTULize

Toby said:


> And when you are required by law to have an emblem? Which you will eventually...ya gonna ignore it like you likely are doing with your insurance?


I have great insurance, thank you.


----------



## Guest

ReviTULize said:


> I have great insurance, thank you.


Does Oklahoma allow ride sharing under personal insurance? What do you use?


----------



## ReviTULize

Oklahoma just passed a bill that approved ridesharing. affordable gap insurance is coming soon


----------



## DriverJ

chi1cabby said:


> Were you logged on the Partner App at that time?
> If you were logged in at the time of the accident, you can ask your Personal Car Insurance co to deny your claim. Then Uber's contingent gap insurance coverage should be responsible for your liabilities.
> If you were not logged in at the time of the accident, you can ask Uber to provide you with Login activity record for that day to submit to your insurer. Now I'm not sure if Uber will actually provide you with a Login Record, but that's the only way to prove to your insurer that you were engaged in personal (non commercial) driving at that time.
> 
> Attn. Walkersm


Great info., but I don't see Uber offering any help. The fewer claims James River has to cover, the better for Uber. Isn't that a high deductible too?


----------



## DriverJ

Huberis said:


> What a cluster**** of confusion, and I am not referring to your post. My guess is that the partnership with Uber is meant to make it less convenient to drive for Lyft. I can't think straight, need food......... Does this force the driver in phase 1 to rely on Lyft for coverage during that period? I had this thought through at one point but it has left me or is buried somewhere. A driver would be forced there into that $2500 deductible.
> 
> MM wouldn't have you, Uber wouldn't have you, but James River through Lyft would have you to the tune of a $2500 deductible which is pretty freaking huge considering how expensive repairs can be.
> 
> In theory, it isn't wise to be out cruising with the app on. I assume people do it however. If they are out doing errands, they could easily choose to have the app on to interrupt their chores with pay.


I feel better and better each day knowing I did the right thing by dumping Uber. This crap is so not worth it. There's no money, but then you risk all of this stuff, but it actually sounds as though even this one could have been much worse.

To show how lost Uber is - after lowering their fare from $1.15/mile, to an astounding $0.70/mile here in Louisville, I see they've now raised it back to $1.00/mile. They don't have a clue what they're doing, not even a slight hint.


----------



## Tim In Cleveland

I did contact my insurance, Esurance. They are fine with me driving for Uber and will not drop me. Period 1, is still a problem though. Although there is liability coverage from Uber, Insurance companies don't want to provide any coverage and right now Uber isn't providing any collision coverage. I wrote them yesterday and asked about it, and they haven't replied. I don't know a single insurance company in Oho that will provide coverage in period 1 unless you buy a full commercial policy which is ridiculous.
I still think period 1 is looking for work. It is no different than a job seeker driving around looking for help wanted signs. They are not penalized even if they job search every singled day for 8 hours a day, but we are being singled out for exclusion harrassment because they want us to buy expensive commercial insurance.


----------



## DriverJ

observer said:


> Uber drivers should be a protected class.


Like kids with Autism.


----------



## DriverJ

ARIV005 said:


> Burn the car and open a separate claim for that. Then buy a bicycle.


Uber-Bike is paying $0.05/mile. Those fat chicks and hills are killer though.


----------



## DriverJ

Walkersm said:


> Well in reality that just happens to be the test case to establish the case law that software company does not have to be liable for users of it's platform. If Uber wins that one, and they have a good chance, that will make it's 40 Billion valuation real.


I'd be trying to help the family, and little-man Kalanick, and his band of cronies just want to shun any responsibility.

I'll say it again. Uber sucks!


----------



## DriverJ

DrJeecheroo said:


> Is it true txrides? did you say that? (Even though I haven't a clue to what you said) lol, Looks like someone put a spin on whatever you posted.


Maybe it was one of those $0.90/mile brainiacs.


----------



## Lidman

DriverJ said:


> I feel better and better each day knowing I did the right thing by dumping Uber. This crap is so not worth it. There's no money, but then you risk all of this stuff, but it actually sounds as though even this one could have been much worse.
> 
> To show how lost Uber is - after lowering their fare from $1.15/mile, to an astounding $0.70/mile here in Louisville, I see they've now raised it back to $1.00/mile. They don't have a clue what they're doing, not even a slight hint.


even if they raise them up to over $2 I still wouldn't trust them, they shouldn't have cut the rates so low in the first place, they probably now reaiize that .70/mile will lose quite a few drivers. It's good you're staying clear,


----------



## Toby

ReviTULize said:


> I have great insurance, thank you.


Do share


----------



## Toby

DrJeecheroo said:


> Why? What do you think will happen?


He'll get into an accident and his insurance will not cover jack. Then he'll disappear from these forums instead of admitting how wrong he was to not have proper insurance.


----------



## Toby

Tim In Cleveland said:


> I did contact my insurance, Esurance. They are fine with me driving for Uber and will not drop me. Period 1, is still a problem though. Although there is liability coverage from Uber, Insurance companies don't want to provide any coverage and right now Uber isn't providing any collision coverage. I wrote them yesterday and asked about it, and they haven't replied. I don't know a single insurance company in Oho that will provide coverage in period 1 unless you buy a full commercial policy which is ridiculous.
> I still think period 1 is looking for work. It is no different than a job seeker driving around looking for help wanted signs. They are not penalized even if they job search every singled day for 8 hours a day, but we are being singled out for exclusion harrassment because they want us to buy expensive commercial insurance.


What could they be thinking insisting that a car that operates commercially be registered and licensed as commercial? The nerve of those regulators and lawmakers! This is why Uber can take advantage of it's drivers, you let them lead you down a path that is good for them and bad for you.


----------



## DriverJ

Lidman said:


> even if they raise them up to over $2 I still wouldn't trust them, they shouldn't have cut the rates so low in the first place, they probably now reaiize that .70/mile will lose quite a few drivers. It's good you're staying clear,


Yep, $0.70 was a slap in the face, but it proved what I always suspected, Uber cares absolutely, positively about nothing except what their bottom line looks like to investors. Lie, cheat, steal (from drivers) they'll do whatever it takes. Drivers are but a very temporary nuisance, just so much noise to squelch with their lies. Drivers are the peasants that Uber can soon discard.


----------



## DriverJ

Toby said:


> What could they be thinking insisting that a car that operates commercially be registered and licensed as commercial? The nerve of those regulators and lawmakers! This is why Uber can take advantage of it's drivers, you let them lead you down a path that is good for them and bad for you.


They're a technology company, the driver gets to deal with the twisted metal, and blood, guts and bones. Uber just clicks the deactivate button, and the next dumb-ass takes crash-boy's place.


----------



## UBERXHOUSTON

This is very important to all of us , please keep us up to date on how it goes so that we can learn from your experience.


----------



## Huberis

Tim In Cleveland said:


> I did contact my insurance, Esurance. They are fine with me driving for Uber and will not drop me. Period 1, is still a problem though. Although there is liability coverage from Uber, Insurance companies don't want to provide any coverage and right now Uber isn't providing any collision coverage. I wrote them yesterday and asked about it, and they haven't replied. I don't know a single insurance company in Oho that will provide coverage in period 1 unless you buy a full commercial policy which is ridiculous.
> I still think period 1 is looking for work. It is no different than a job seeker driving around looking for help wanted signs. They are not penalized even if they job search every singled day for 8 hours a day, but we are being singled out for exclusion harrassment because they want us to buy expensive commercial insurance.


That is a real rub. State, municipalities, regulators, don't care if you are mostly covered. Period one is still working, people drive like nuts between calls. Often, with a pax, or heading for one a driver needs to be on their best behavior. It is often between calls they drive their most aggressive.

Commercial insurance is expensive. It is not harassment that you are being encouraged to get such insurance, it simply is right. That you aren't able to afford such insurance is really more about your relationship with Uber. It is a reflection of their rate structure, their willingness to work with casual, more disposable drivers.

States, municipalities and regulators value other things than Travis: They may not want the transportation to be taken over by the shadow economy, a place of very casual, poorly paid workers.

Your argument has more to do with what is convenient for you, what works for you. In order to be covered properly, you can't afford it. Regulators need to step up and protect the people on the road, the people doing business with proper insurance, it is just that simple.

Your beef is with Travis and the way he structured Uber.


----------



## Huberis

Tim In Cleveland said:


> I did contact my insurance, Esurance. They are fine with me driving for Uber and will not drop me. Period 1, is still a problem though. Although there is liability coverage from Uber, Insurance companies don't want to provide any coverage and right now Uber isn't providing any collision coverage. I wrote them yesterday and asked about it, and they haven't replied. I don't know a single insurance company in Oho that will provide coverage in period 1 unless you buy a full commercial policy which is ridiculous.
> I still think period 1 is looking for work. It is no different than a job seeker driving around looking for help wanted signs. They are not penalized even if they job search every singled day for 8 hours a day, but we are being singled out for exclusion harrassment because they want us to buy expensive commercial insurance.


Have you noticed or heard that new drivers are being charged 30% for their first X amount of calls before it drops down to 20%? That could partly be an effort to get more money from new drivers they don't expect to be around for very long. However, all of these new policies and practices could very well increase the number of claims Uber and James River pays out. That could cost them a ton more money and quickly. Uber already operates at a loss. Travis doesn't want you to have commercial insurance and the states can't seem seem able to get you to buy it.

The money has to come from somewhere, and it will come from you the drivers. I wouldn't be surprised to see Uber taking a bigger piece of the pie to make up for their higher premiums. Rideshare drivers clearly get ****ed well enough as it is. At the end of the day, when it comes to insurance money - they are going to take your money. With luck, it will come in a form you find acceptable.


----------



## Tim In Cleveland

If they expand that to all drivers, I'm quitting. I'm already really shaky about this. Yeah, I'm getting a decent "income" but it's trashing my car. Drivers who track all miles note driving two miles for every paid mile (getting to/returning to busy area and driving to customers). That's $1.12 in expenses per paid mile. We should be getting that plus a decent hourly wage. Not many are making that.


----------



## Huberis

Tim In Cleveland said:


> If they expand that to all drivers, I'm quitting. I'm already really shaky about this. Yeah, I'm getting a decent "income" but it's trashing my car. Drivers who track all miles note driving two miles for every paid mile (getting to/returning to busy area and driving to customers). That's $1.12 in expenses per paid mile. We should be getting that plus a decent hourly wage. Not many are making that.


So you drop out of the hot spot and need to get back to the action........ You can't tell me that desire to get back to where the action is isn't going to influence a driver's driving habit. That 1:2 mileage ratio is a real issue. How do you minimize it? Well, one way is you turn your app off..... or, if you are working the guarantee keep it on, and you jet back to where the pings are. For a lot of people working the guarantee, they must be logged on 50 of 60 minutes and often, the calls must originate from say a particular city confine. In an idea world, logic suggests you don't go cruise with the app on, no doubt there are plenty of times when that just isn't practical.

I understand your beef concerning the extreme cost of commercial insurance. It really is on Uber's shoulders. They tried very hard to beat regulation and Lyft anywhere and everywhere to the punch. This is partly the result.

Uber rates are set below operating costs. Travis is willing and able to do that because he has Glodman Sachs backing him up. You have no one backing you up, in fact - you willingly beat the **** out of your car to support his ability to operate at a loss.

Try to temper your willingness to criticize state and municipalities to regulate ride share. Why shouldn't they? Travis doesn't even have the best interests of their own drivers in mind. Why should any given town assume they are willing to be good citizens?


----------



## Tx rides

Tim In Cleveland said:


> I did contact my insurance, Esurance. They are fine with me driving for Uber and will not drop me. Period 1, is still a problem though. Although there is liability coverage from Uber, Insurance companies don't want to provide any coverage and right now Uber isn't providing any collision coverage. I wrote them yesterday and asked about it, and they haven't replied. I don't know a single insurance company in Oho that will provide coverage in period 1 unless you buy a full commercial policy which is ridiculous.
> I still think period 1 is looking for work. It is no different than a job seeker driving around looking for help wanted signs. They are not penalized even if they job search every singled day for 8 hours a day, but we are being singled out for exclusion harrassment because they want us to buy expensive commercial insurance.


It does not matter what you think. It does matter what those who must absorb or cover the risks think. The data, and law years tell them it is an increased risk. Common sense says it is an increased risk, because Phase 1 includes trolling, monitoring an app, and driving in congested areas. You are NO DIFFERENT from any taxi in the same setting, and until there is significant data supporting otherwise, carriers are going to treat you accordingly. Private corporations don't want the additional risks on their property, and that is their right. Your opinion is not a factor in their decisions.

Why is this so difficult for some to grasp? You are a single car livery service or cab...take your pick, doesn't matter. There are plenty of small operators around the country who don't stay busy full-time for various reasons, however they must carry full coverage for when their car is on the road available for service. Insurance companies are not going to eat the legal/investigative/administrative costs associated with coverage determination, and their non-commercial policy holders are not going to cover the risk for you.

You may not agree with the rules, but that does not really matter. Until you have the coverage required to operate on the streets and in the private areas where you wish to serve, you are on the hook for your damages, so embrace your radical side and eat the costs if they occur, but quit trying to insist that others should spot you through their own policies.


----------



## Huberis

Tx rides said:


> It does not matter what you think. It does matter what those who must absorb or cover the risks think. The data, and law years tell them it is an increased risk. Common sense says it is an increased risk, because Phase 1 includes trolling, monitoring an app, and driving in congested areas. You are NO DIFFERENT from any taxi in the same setting, and until there is significant data supporting otherwise, carriers are going to treat you accordingly. Private corporations don't want the additional risks on their property, and that is their right. Your opinion is not a factor in their decisions.
> 
> Why is this so difficult for some to grasp? You are a single car livery service or cab...take your pick, doesn't matter. There are plenty of small operators around the country who don't stay busy full-time for various reasons, however they must carry full coverage for when their car is on the road available for service. Insurance companies are not going to eat the legal/investigative/administrative costs associated with coverage determination, and their non-commercial policy holders are not going to cover the risk for you.
> 
> You may not agree with the rules, but that does not really matter. Until you have the coverage required to operate on the streets and in the private areas where you wish to serve, you are on the hook for your damages, so embrace your radical side and eat the costs if they occur, but quit trying to insist that others should spot you through their own policies.


Couldn't agree more. They are taking on a driver's risk in the form of fixing what gets broken.

What a person thinks, is simply a reflection of what they might like, need or feel they are owed. That doesn't mean it is relevant or reasonable. It is almost nihilistic.


----------



## Tx rides

Huberis said:


> Couldn't agree more. They are taking on a driver's risk in the form of fixing what gets broken.
> 
> What a person thinks, is simply a reflection of what they might like, need or feel they are owed. That doesn't mean it is relevant or reasonable. It is almost nihilistic.


I think I am 10x more qualified to teach computer science to kids than most every teacher I've encountered, even though I don't have the school's required credentials. Many parents agree and would rather have me teaching their kids, but when I showed up on campus and started teaching in the cafeteria, they kicked me to the curb


----------



## Huberis

Tx rides said:


> I think I am 10x more qualified to teach computer science to kids than most every teacher I've encountered, even though I don't have the school's required credentials. Many parents agree and would rather have me teaching their kids, but when I showed up on campus and started teaching in the cafeteria, they kicked me to the curb


I have zero knowledge of how old Tim from Cleveland is, but his insistence that the insurance companies need to not only provide him the coverage he needs, but at the price he expects, makes me think of how every kid today gets a trophy of some kind. Every kid gets his trophy, he is entitled. His position is a kind of entitlement. In my opinion.


----------



## Tx rides

Huberis said:


> I have zero knowledge of how old Tim from Cleveland is, but his insistence that the insurance companies need to not only provide him the coverage he needs, but at the price he expects, makes me think of how every kid today gets a trophy of some kind. Every kid gets his trophy, he is entitled. His position is a kind of entitlement. In my opinion.


He's only slightly older than I am . 52 according to profile.


----------



## JSM0713

UberDude2 said:


> PAX=Call Uber
> NO PAX=Call your insurance


Mind if i ask.... call what UBER number??? One thing that really gets me about UBER is that they do not have a phone number to call... Did I miss something??? If I have accident while on an UBER call who do I conntact and how do I contact them???


----------



## UberDude2

JSM0713 said:


> Mind if i ask.... call what UBER number??? One thing that really gets me about UBER is that they do not have a phone number to call... Did I miss something??? If I have accident while on an UBER call who do I conntact and how do I contact them???


You're right. There is no number to call. That was a mistake on my part. However you can go to your driver dash board and print the insurance policy to place in your vehicle.
You could always contact them through email.


----------



## MrsUberJax

Your best bet is to get Uber to provide you with your Login Log for the day. If they won't do that, submit a claim to Uber and they will deny it because you were not logged in at the time. Then show your insurance company that YOU WERE NOT LOGGED IN AT THE TIME. Done!


----------



## ARIV005

If you have full coverage, burn the damn thing and move on. You're committing insurance fraud by driving for Uber without proper insurance anyway.


----------



## TomP

MrsUberJax said:


> Your best bet is to get Uber to provide you with your Login Log for the day. If they won't do that, submit a claim to Uber and they will deny it because you were not logged in at the time. Then show your insurance company that YOU WERE NOT LOGGED IN AT THE TIME. Done!


I hope this works, I hope Bmonaye has already done this successfully but there is a chance that it may not work. The insurance company could argue that the driving was related to Uber (i.e. Bmonaye might not have been driving to get food where he was driving if it were not for Uber) and therefore not provide coverage. There is a related precedent known as the "Case of the Yoga and Yoghurt" mentioned in earlier in this thread; see http://insurancethoughtleadership.c...al-model-for-all-states/#sthash.nNvUCspl.dpbs.


----------



## azndriver87

ARIV005 said:


> If you have full coverage, burn the damn thing and move on. You're committing insurance fraud by driving for Uber without proper insurance anyway.


Proper insurance is "personal insurance with $1000 in deductible all around."


----------



## AMAdriver

In NC, it doesn't matter if you are "working" at the time of the accident. Most personal auto policies are automatically voided if the covered auto is used for any commercial use. Quote from my insurance agent in NC, *"Unfortunately, the NC personal auto policy specifically excludes bodily injury or property damage coverage arising out of the operation of an insured auto while operated to carry persons or property for a charge, or the operation of any auto an insured person is driving while available for hire by the public. You would need a commercial policy to cover you if you are driving for Uber. "*


----------



## Huberis

The previous post is correct. Personal insurance doesn't cut it. have you told your personal provider you drive rideshare?


azndriver87 said:


> Proper insurance is "personal insurance with $1000 in deductible all around."


----------



## TeleSki

observer said:


> The other thing I noticed, that IS illegal, is that their premiums are based on Zip Code.


All car insurance premiums are based on zip code, among other factors.


----------



## observer

TeleSki said:


> All car insurance premiums are based on zip code, among other factors.


California passed prop 103 supposedly outlawing Zip Code based premiums.

http://m.consumerwatchdog.org/viewdata.php?nid=40531


----------



## TeleSki

That link looked to mostly talk about charging drivers for advertising costs. This was stated at another website from 2012;
"In California, where *zip codes are not allowed to be the top rating factor* by formula, the difference was a bit less dramatic, with rates for an identical driver ranging from $990 to $2,400 based solely on where he or she lived."
So they can use zip codes in determining rates, it just can't be the sole or main factor.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/car-insurance-are-you-in-a-high-cost-zip-code/


----------



## ARIV005

azndriver87 said:


> Proper insurance is "personal insurance with $1000 in deductible all around."


$1000 deductible OUcH! Far from proper...


----------



## azndriver87

Huberis said:


> The previous post is correct. Personal insurance doesn't cut it. have you told your personal provider you drive rideshare?


don't ask don't tell. why get them to drop you now when you can worry about it later?


----------



## Older Chauffeur

TeleSki said:


> That link looked to mostly talk about charging drivers for advertising costs. This was stated at another website from 2012;
> "In California, where *zip codes are not allowed to be the top rating factor* by formula, the difference was a bit less dramatic, with rates for an identical driver ranging from $990 to $2,400 based solely on where he or she lived."
> So they can use zip codes in determining rates, it just can't be the sole or main factor.
> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/car-insurance-are-you-in-a-high-cost-zip-code/


I tried to explain this to "observer" in a post exchange #122-124, based on posts 113-114.


----------



## Huberis

azndriver87 said:


> don't ask don't tell. why get them to drop you now when you can worry about it later?


That's what I figured. God luck with that. I assume your car is paid for at the very least?


----------



## observer

TeleSki said:


> That link looked to mostly talk about charging drivers for advertising costs. This was stated at another website from 2012;
> "In California, where *zip codes are not allowed to be the top rating factor* by formula, the difference was a bit less dramatic, with rates for an identical driver ranging from $990 to $2,400 based solely on where he or she lived."
> So they can use zip codes in determining rates, it just can't be the sole or main factor.
> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/car-insurance-are-you-in-a-high-cost-zip-code/





Older Chauffeur said:


> I tried to explain this to "observer" in a post exchange #122-124, based on posts 113-114.


I understand that it is one factor of many, but if my premium is based on factors like my driving record (accidents,tickets,DUIs), marriage status, age, none of those change whatever my zip code. So doesn't this mean that they are using zip code as the MAIN factor, contrary to prop 103.

Anyway, I sent in a question on this to consumer watchdog. I'll let you guys know what they respond.


----------



## DrJeecheroo

DriverJ said:


> They're a technology company, the driver gets to deal with the twisted metal, and blood, guts and bones. Uber just clicks the deactivate button, and the next dumb-ass takes crash-boy's place.


Sad and diabolical, but true.


----------



## Ziggy

Bmonaye said:


> meaning? How so, I am covered either way.





Bmonaye said:


> 1) no commercial insurance, at the time of the incident I was using my car for personal use.
> 2)the other driver told them about my uber sign in the window and they figured to peruse uber to cover it that instead of themselves.


Actually, all insurance companies have a "no commercial activity" exclusion in their PAP (personal auto policy) insurance. note: the no commercial activity exclusion in all personal insurance policies doesn't only apply to Ride Share activities, it also applies to pizza delivery and a long list of other commercial activities (here) *but you should check with your insurance co for their full list

Any Ride Share driver that only has a Personal auto policy without either (1) Ride Share Gap Protection amendment; or (2) Commercial Livery Insurance is running the risk of having their claim denied and losing their personal insurance coverage ... whether or not they were driving for Uber at the time or not. Simply put, you violated the terms and conditions of your Personal auto policy by using your personal vehicle for business/commercial purposes

And even though I had Commercial Livery Insurance; and now have Personal auto policy with Ride Share Gap Protection amendment ... there's no way I'm affixing an Uber or Lyft logo to my car.


----------



## DrJeecheroo

Drivingmecrazy said:


> Definitely not. All insurers adjust their rate based on where you live. Higher crime rate, higher rate. Haven't you ever moved and had your insurance rate adjust?


That dog is giving me "The look".


----------



## observer

observer said:


> I understand that it is one factor of many, but if my premium is based on factors like my driving record (accidents,tickets,DUIs), marriage status, age, none of those change whatever my zip code. So doesn't this mean that they are using zip code as the MAIN factor, contrary to prop 103.
> 
> Anyway, I sent in a question on this to consumer watchdog. I'll let you guys know what they respond.





Older Chauffeur said:


> I tried to explain this to "observer" in a post exchange #122-124, based on posts 113-114.


Here is answer I recieved from The Chris Dolan law firm on legality of MM using Zip Code as a factor in setting rates. I only erased my name and contact info.

I understand it CAN BE a factor but not exclusively and MY miles driven and experience have to be more important.

My argument is in both quotes the ONLY difference is Zip Code so they must be using that to charge more.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please find enclosed the information I received from myh friends at Consumer Watcdog regarding your questions on the MetroMile insurance.

Hi Chris -

On your Uber question, see Pam's answer below. The Metromile policies are an endorsement to personal coverage, not commercial - they're essentially extending your personal coverage to the time you're driving around waiting for a passenger be/c Uber won't cover that in their commercial policy. So all of Prop 103's rating rules apply. Zip code can be a factor, but not exclusively, and driving record, miles driven and experience have to be more important.

Carmen

Carmen Balber
Executive Director
Consumer Watchdog
2701 Ocean Park Blvd, Ste 112
Santa Monica, CA 90405

Begin forwarded message:

*From: *Pamela Pressley
*Subject: Re: Your Inquiry to Dolan Law Firm
Date: *June 3, 2015 at 2:31:10 PM PDT

Attached is the page from the National General Metromile filing that discusses how TNC policies are rated. Appears as though it's an endorsement to a Private Passenger Auto policy and all rating factors from class plan apply - TNC use will fall under Type of Vehicle, which for now is set at 1.0 until they get enough credible data to adjust. Miles driven while using vehicle for a prearranged ride for TNC will not be counted in rating of that vehicle. So to answer the person's question, yes, zip code is an allowable rating factor under the approved class plan but can't outweigh the mandatory factors.

Here's what filing says (page attached):

"The class plan approved under CDI File No. 13‐8183 will be used with a "Type of Vehicle Use" rating factor of 1.00 for TNC risks."

...

"Miles driven while the vehicle is being used for a prearranged ride for a qualifying TNC will not be counted in the rating of that vehicle."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anyone here a lawyer and can decipher this. .

Regardless, it does give a little more info on MM. So I figured it was worth sharing.


----------



## observer

observer said:


> Here is answer I recieved from The Chris Dolan law firm on legality of MM using Zip Code as a factor in setting rates. I only erased my name and contact info.
> 
> I understand it CAN BE a factor but not exclusively and MY miles driven and experience have to be more important.
> 
> My argument is in both quotes the ONLY difference is Zip Code so they must be using that to charge more.
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> Please find enclosed the information I received from myh friends at Consumer Watcdog regarding your questions on the MetroMile insurance.
> 
> Hi Chris -
> 
> On your Uber question, see Pam's answer below. The Metromile policies are an endorsement to personal coverage, not commercial - they're essentially extending your personal coverage to the time you're driving around waiting for a passenger be/c Uber won't cover that in their commercial policy. So all of Prop 103's rating rules apply. Zip code can be a factor, but not exclusively, and driving record, miles driven and experience have to be more important.
> 
> Carmen
> 
> Carmen Balber
> Executive Director
> Consumer Watchdog
> 2701 Ocean Park Blvd, Ste 112
> Santa Monica, CA 90405
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> *From: *Pamela Pressley
> *Subject: Re: Your Inquiry to Dolan Law Firm
> Date: *June 3, 2015 at 2:31:10 PM PDT
> 
> Attached is the page from the National General Metromile filing that discusses how TNC policies are rated. Appears as though it's an endorsement to a Private Passenger Auto policy and all rating factors from class plan apply - TNC use will fall under Type of Vehicle, which for now is set at 1.0 until they get enough credible data to adjust. Miles driven while using vehicle for a prearranged ride for TNC will not be counted in rating of that vehicle. So to answer the person's question, yes, zip code is an allowable rating factor under the approved class plan but can't outweigh the mandatory factors.
> 
> Here's what filing says (page attached):
> 
> "The class plan approved under CDI File No. 13‐8183 will be used with a "Type of Vehicle Use" rating factor of 1.00 for TNC risks."
> 
> ...
> 
> "Miles driven while the vehicle is being used for a prearranged ride for a qualifying TNC will not be counted in the rating of that vehicle."
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> Anyone here a lawyer and can decipher this. .
> 
> Regardless, it does give a little more info on MM. So I figured it was worth sharing.


I also sent them a follow up email with more information. I'll post their response when I recieve it.


----------



## Older Chauffeur

It would be interesting to see what the CA State Insurance Commissioner would have to say about this issue. You could write to him/her stating the facts just as you have here, and show that the rates differ only by zip code. It does indeed fail the smell test.


----------



## observer

Older Chauffeur said:


> It would be interesting to see what the CA State Insurance Commissioner would have to say about this issue. You could write to him/her stating the facts just as you have here, and show that the rates differ only by zip code. It does indeed fail the smell test.


Another thing I found interesting is that rating factor of 1.0 and statement that they will readjust when they have enough credible data.

So MM users keep your eyes open and don't get into accidents or rates will go up.

Of course, if users have less accidents than forecast, rates MAY go down.


----------



## observer

observer said:


> Another thing I found interesting is that rating factor of 1.0 and statement that they will readjust when they have enough credible data.
> 
> So MM users keep your eyes open and don't get into accidents or rates will go up.
> 
> Of course, if users have less accidents than forecast, rates MAY go down.


And you won't be able to hide your TNC use from anyone, and under increased scrutiny every time you apply for insurance.


----------

