# Esurance will NOT cancel You



## Tim In Cleveland

I suspected all the doom and gloom worrymongers are full of it and have found that to be true for my company:

To: [email protected]
Subject: Auto insurance question
Received: 5/14/2015 7:14:40 AM

Does providing livery services for Uber void my policy? Uber provides insurance from the time the driver turns the app on (is available to receive requests) and increases that insurance once a customer has requested a ride or is in the car. Personal insurance would be required when the driver turns the app off for lunch/break or done for the day.

If my car is damaged during an Uber covered period, for some reason, they expect me to submit a claim to you first. If denied, they will then cover my car...

Response from Esurance:

Dear ***,

Thanks for contacting Esurance.

Any type of vehicle usage that involves transporting people for a fee is specifically excluded from
your policy, which means that we would not provide coverage while you are driving for Uber. If you are off the clock, your policy applies.

We hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions, please call our customer service center at 1-800-ESURANCE (1-800-378-7262) or you may reply to this email. We're here for you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

As always, thank you for being an Esurance policyholder.

Sincerely,
The Esurance Customer Service Team

So, no...I am not cancelled merely for working for Uber and am covered any time I'm off the clock.


----------



## ReviTULize

Is that what your policy says? This would not hold up in court


----------



## kuber10

I just called my agent for Erie insurance after being scared for awhile from reading posts on this site. She confirmed with corporate, as long as I am only driving part time, my personal policy will cover me when the app is off. When the app is on, I'm covered only by the uber policy. She mentioned that Erie is piloting policies and add-ons in other states for ride share drivers, but not in PA where I am, yet.


----------



## Tx rides

Tim In Cleveland said:


> I suspected all the doom and gloom worrymongers are full of it and have found that to be true for my company:
> 
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Auto insurance question
> Received: 5/14/2015 7:14:40 AM
> 
> Does providing livery services for Uber void my policy? Uber provides insurance from the time the driver turns the app on (is available to receive requests) and increases that insurance once a customer has requested a ride or is in the car. Personal insurance would be required when the driver turns the app off for lunch/break or done for the day.
> 
> If my car is damaged during an Uber covered period, for some reason, they expect me to submit a claim to you first. If denied, they will then cover my car...
> 
> Response from Esurance:
> 
> Dear ***,
> 
> Thanks for contacting Esurance.
> 
> Any type of vehicle usage that involves transporting people for a fee is specifically excluded from
> your policy, which means that we would not provide coverage while you are driving for Uber. If you are off the clock, your policy applies.
> 
> We hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions, please call our customer service center at 1-800-ESURANCE (1-800-378-7262) or you may reply to this email. We're here for you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
> 
> As always, thank you for being an Esurance policyholder.
> 
> Sincerely,
> The Esurance Customer Service Team
> 
> So, no...I am not cancelled merely for working for Uber and am covered any time I'm off the clock.


As one of the resident "fear mongers", 
I have this to say:

1. I personally have always said it depends on your carrier. An Esurance exec had even published warnings last year specifically warning it would cancel drivers, especially those who made claims during trolling mode. At that time, Uber did not carry primary insurance during app on phase.

2. If Uber has now modified their coverage to include primary coverage during app on phase, have they provided you with proof of this? Their published insurance information still indicates otherwise, as it claims the liability coverage is contingent, and there is no collision/comprehensive provided by them during this phase. Again, if this has changed, you would think they would update their public statements. If they have provided you convincing evidence, then good for you, it seems you have therefore made an informed decision about YOUR policy and coverage.

3. All I have ever done is try to convince people to get specific facts and evidence, AS IT PERTAINS TO THEIR POLICY, because over the course of the last few years, I have heard from numerous executive level insurance experts who have stated they are in a cleansing mode. Remember-they can opt to mark you as a high risk. They even use credit scores now. I have also met drivers who have been dropped. If imploring novice commercial drivers to be FULLY AWARE of all risks, and FULLY PREPARED to accept them makes me a fear monger, I'll wear that label. Fear mongers helped us build our business by sharing early warnings based on their experiences. If I save someone from making a costly mistake by typing some words into a forum comment, no sweat.


----------



## Beur

Nowhere in that email response you posted does it say your policy won't be canceled.


----------



## djino

Beur said:


> Nowhere in that email response you posted does it say your policy won't be canceled.


Exactly. I'd like to see the position the insurer would take when you later make a non-uber claim that has a high amount in damages/injuries attached to it, when they then have on record that you are/were using Uber previously.

djino


----------



## Tim In Cleveland

Beur said:


> Nowhere in that email response you posted does it say your policy won't be canceled.


It also doesn't say they won't detonate a thermonuclear bomb. Should I worry?
" If you are off the clock, your policy applies." Obviously that means they are not cancelling me.

If you are off the clock, your policy applies.



ReviTULize said:


> Is that what your policy says? This would not hold up in court


After being told that you are an Uber driver, it's on them to cancel the policy. If they don't, no judge will side with them.

The policy says .."when it is being used as a livery...."; it does not spell cancellation or a voided policy of the entire policy just because at times, you work as a livery worker. You have no examples of off-duty claims being denied because the driver is also a livery worker.
It would have to say "if it was ever used for livery during the policy period" or something that drastic. Just the word "when" will cause them lose if they tried b.s.

I still have no clear proof they aren't developing WMD's so there is still cause for concern.


----------



## Beur

You can lead a horse to water ....

People only hear what they want to hear.


----------



## Beur

djino said:


> Exactly. I'd like to see the position the insurer would take when you later make a non-uber claim that has a high amount in damages/injuries attached to it, when they then have on record that you are/were using Uber previously.
> 
> djino


Yes, because a low level CSR trumps that of an exec who has stated he would cancel those driving for über. We know it's the low level CSR making all the important decisions that affect the bottom line. </sarcasm)


----------



## Tim In Cleveland

Beur said:


> Yes, because a low level CSR trumps that of an exec who has stated he would cancel those driving for über. We know it's the low level CSR making all the important decisions that affect the bottom line. </sarcasm)


AGAIN: It has the word "when", that means exclusion WHEN it's being used for livery and NOT other times and secondarily it does not mention voiding or cancelling a policy if it is every used.

You mock the CSR's word and fail to acknowledge that your's means even less.


----------



## Beur

Tim In Cleveland said:


> AGAIN: It has the word "when", that means exclusion WHEN it's being used for livery and NOT other times and secondarily it does not mention voiding or cancelling a policy if it is every used.
> 
> You mock the CSR's word and fail to acknowledge that your's means even less.


AGAIN: you're reading what you want to read, nowhere in the cut and paste email you provided above does the CSR use the word WHEN.

You continue driving around HUA and ignoring the experiences of others.


----------



## Beur

Here let me do your research for you. This is straight from Esurnace's blog dated February 2014:

"*Esurance and TNCs*
Though we can't speak for all insurance companies, the livery exclusion is pretty universal. *According to our definitions of coverage, TNC drivers would need commercial insurance since a personal auto policy through Esurance doesn't cover both personal and commercial use of a vehicle*. In all states except California, we're unable to offer a standard policy to TNC drivers. And in California, the driver's standard coverage doesn't apply during a rideshare trip.

If you're driving for a TNC, the California Department of Insurance urges you to contact your insurance company and see if there are gaps in your coverage that are putting you at risk. You might be better off with a commercial policy. (Esurance doesn't offer commercial auto insurance, but you can get it through our partner.) Since Lyft is already available in 20 cities (and UberX in dozens), this is good advice no matter where you live."

http://blog.esurance.com/are-you-sure-you-want-to-be-an-uberx-driver/#.VVZddHBHarU

Now you go ahead and continue driving HUA with improper insurance because a CSR incorrectly told you you were covered.


----------



## kuber10

Like I mentioned above, my personal insurance company also confirmed that I would not be dropped. Just call your agent to be sure.


----------



## Tx rides

Tim In Cleveland said:


> It also doesn't say they won't detonate a thermonuclear bomb. Should I worry?
> " If you are off the clock, your policy applies." Obviously that means they are not cancelling me.
> 
> If you are off the clock, your policy applies.
> 
> After being told that you are an Uber driver, it's on them to cancel the policy. If they don't, no judge will side with them.
> 
> The policy says .."when it is being used as a livery...."; it does not spell cancellation or a voided policy of the entire policy just because at times, you work as a livery worker. You have no examples of off-duty claims being denied because the driver is also a livery worker.
> It would have to say "if it was ever used for livery during the policy period" or something that drastic. Just the word "when" will cause them lose if they tried b.s.
> 
> I still have no clear proof they aren't developing WMD's so there is still cause for concern.


There are definitely reports and evidence of claims of insurance being canceled. Now, whether those driver was able to verify that they were "Off duty" , I cannot say, I don't follow their court cases or anything and do not know if Uber was cooperative. In addition to cancellations, they can also flat out refuse to renew you. There have been some drivers in this forum who have reported being declined to renew.


----------



## observer

kuber10 said:


> I just called my agent for Erie insurance after being scared for awhile from reading posts on this site. She confirmed with corporate, as long as I am only driving part time, my personal policy will cover me when the app is off. When the app is on, I'm covered only by the uber policy. She mentioned that Erie is piloting policies and add-ons in other states for ride share drivers, but not in PA where I am, yet.


Please note, "part time driver". How many hours or miles constitute part time?

It sounds like if you are a full time driver, you are still not covered.


----------



## Older Chauffeur

I suspect that there is wording somewhere in any standard auto policy to the effect that no one, be it an agent, CSR, etc can change the terms, conditions and restrictions under which the policy is written.
It might be a good idea to ask for a new written policy or statement amending your current policy from the company indicating that the livery exclusion no longer applies and that driving for hire is allowed. If they have actually changed their rules, they should be happy to honor such a request. Otherwise, I believe you are stuck legally with the written policy you were issued.
Disclosure: I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. And it has been over forty five years since I sold auto insurance
In CA. But I do read my insurance policies.


----------



## Tim In Cleveland

That old wording from Esurance was when Uber did not cover phase 1 (app on, no requests yet). They do now. The game has changed.
"In all states except California, we’re unable to offer a standard policy to TNC drivers." I told them I drive for Uber, they did not cancel the policy. They only said "If you are off the clock, your policy applies." Yes, a policy that specifically says that would be great, but please remember, it's only been announced for a couple weeks that we have app on to app off coverage through Uber. This will likely need a little time before it starts showing up in a policy, but I will try asking and see what happens.


----------



## Tim In Cleveland

As I suspected, a CSR can't rewrite the policy to my request, but it's not needed anyway. The policy contains definitions of when driving is considered commercial. For a delivery person, it is both taking goods somewhere AND the ride back. There is NO POINT in mentioning the ride back if just the delivery portion voids or cancels the policy. There are several more definitions of when it is commercial driving and the same principal applies. If your b.s. claims were true, it would simply state any commercial use permanently voids and cancels the policy.
Yes, some riders were cancelled or were refused renewal, but that was when Uber was refusing to insure period 1. We will see that changing as the industry learns the update. It's not happening fast because Uber hasn't made the formal announcement that it has app on to app off insurance.


----------



## Beur

Period 1 app on is contingently covered by Uber's insurance - it is contigent coverage if your own personal policy does not have liability coverage i.e. property damage/personal injury. If an accident occurs during period one your submit to your insurance carrier, in your case Esurance - guess what you're NOT covered because you were working livery.

Period 2 & 3 are covered by James River those are the periods from request acceptance and passenger drop off, but the coverage is again contingent on your personal policy having collision coverage, if you don't, you're on your own.

This has been explained many times by myself and a few others, nothing have changed since your last post on this. But you keep hearing/reading what you need to hear/read, it's not going to cover you in the event of a period one accident. The James River contingent policy covers the other party in the accident, not you. Ask the drivers who have had to use the insurance.


----------



## Tim In Cleveland

It's YOU who keep posting the same crud over and over and declaring a victory when you have proved nothing.
I said Esurance won't cancel you for driving for Uber and have proved it. God only knows why you think you have disproved that notion. You haven't.
"contingent policy covers the other party in the accident, not you". You are a liar. There is no point in requiring the driver to carry collision on a personal policy if his car is not covered no matter what.
Yes, it's contingent and you must have your own collision coverage. Those have nothing to do with the point of my thread. You are just out to scare drivers with lies.


----------



## Beur

Tim In Cleveland said:


> It's YOU who keep posting the same crud over and over and declaring a victory when you have proved nothing.
> I said Esurance won't cancel you for driving for Uber and have proved it. God only knows why you think you have disproved that notion. You haven't.
> "contingent policy covers the other party in the accident, not you". You are a liar. There is no point in requiring the driver to carry collision on a personal policy if his car is not covered no matter what.
> Yes, it's contingent and you must have your own collision coverage. Those have nothing to do with the point of my thread. You are just out to scare drivers with lies.


You don't get that you are not insured during period one by Uber as you claim in post #18 https://uberpeople.net/threads/esurance-will-not-cancel-you.20118/#post-278386 - you ARE the one spreading misinformation. Stop *LYING* to the drivers, *THEY ARE NOT COVERED DURING PERIOD 1.

In fact if they don't have the correct coverages required by James River the driver is not covered at all. The contigency coverages only cover the rider and other party to the accident, not the Uber driver. *


----------



## Tim In Cleveland

Collision coverage is for the DRIVER'S car. If it weren't covered as you claim, it wouldn't be mentioned and there would be no requirement for you to have your own and a mention of a $1,000 deductible. Give it up. You are full of it.


----------



## Beur

Tim In Cleveland said:


> Collision coverage is for the DRIVER'S car. If it weren't covered as you claim, it wouldn't be mentioned and there would be no requirement for you to have your own and a mention of a $1,000 deductible. Give it up. You are full of it.


If you as a driver don't carry collision coverage on your personal policy you are *NOT* covered for collision under the James River Policy, that's the contingency in the coverage. During period one you are solely covered by your insurance carrier, as Esurance stated to you in their email they will not cover you while actively driving for Uber. The contingent liability coverage in the James River Policy is there to protect the other party to the accident, not the driver who failed to carry enough liability coverage. Think of James River as gap coverage during period one.

During period 2 & 3 they only way the driver is covered for collision under the James River Policy is if they carry collision coverage on their personal policy. If in an accident during period 2 or 3 you the driver will be covered for liability but not collision repair to your car under the JR policy if you don't carry collision insurance on your personal policy.

You do realize that you don't have to carry collision insurance, it's optional in most states, as is comprehensive insurance. As long as you carry your state's minimum in liability that's all the coverage your need. Liability covers personal injury and property damage caused by you to another, it doesn't cover you.

Done talking to the wall.


----------



## Berliner

Beur said:


> Done talking to the wall.


Give it up. He doesn´t understand this or he won´t understand this. Some guys need to learn the hard lesson.


----------



## Tim In Cleveland

It's Beur that needs to give it up. His full of it. Collision is for the Driver's car ONLY. It has nothing to do with protecting the other party. That is a different category. You just repeat your lies endlessly.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Tim In Cleveland said:


> It's YOU who keep posting the same crud over and over and declaring a victory when you have proved nothing.
> I said Esurance won't cancel you for driving for Uber and have proved it. God only knows why you think you have disproved that notion. You haven't.
> "contingent policy covers the other party in the accident, not you". You are a liar. There is no point in requiring the driver to carry collision on a personal policy if his car is not covered no matter what.
> Yes, it's contingent and you must have your own collision coverage. Those have nothing to do with the point of my thread. You are just out to scare drivers with lies.


Please ask your insurance what will happen if you have an accident that you cause while with the app on and driving around waiting for a ping.

If they cover you great. And by that I mean fix YOUR car and injuries as well as the other driver.

If they say no then ask Uber what they will cover when your insurance denies your claim for YOUR injuries and damaged car.

Thanks.


----------



## Beur

Tim In Cleveland said:


> It's Beur that needs to give it up. His full of it. Collision is for the Driver's car ONLY. It has nothing to do with protecting the other party. That is a different category. You just repeat your lies endlessly.


With this sole post you have proven you lack basic reading comprehension skills. What do you think I've been trying to explain to you.

If you the *DRIVER* do not carry *COLLISION* coverage on your *PERSONAL* policy, James River, Uber's insurance company *WILL NOT* cover you the *DRIVER* for *COLLISION* repair on the *DRIVER's* vehicle. The James River policy has a *CONTINGENCY* on *COLLISION* coverage for the *DRIVER. *If the *DRIVER's* personal insurance policy *DOES* *NOT* include *COLLISION* coverage James River *WILL* *NOT* cover the *DRIVER's* collision repairs. This is during periods 2 & 3, passenger ping to passenger drop off.

During period 1, waiting for a ping - you the *DRIVER *are* NOT COVERED *by Uber's James River policy, your *PERSONAL* *INSURANCE* is in play. If you the *DRIVER* do not have *SUFFICIENT* *LIABILITY* coverage James River contigency coverage will step in and cover the person/property you hit, but the *WILL* *NOT* cover any damage to you or your car.


----------



## Tim In Cleveland

It's YOU who lack basic reading skills. Collision is for the DRIVER'S car. Therefore, THERE IS COVERAGE but you must also have collision on your personal policy and there is a $1,000 deductible.
THAT MEANS there is coverage for the DRIVER'S car THROUGH JAMES RIVERS to cover the DRIVER'S car during phase 1. 
But please, repeat the same darn thing 18 more times.


----------



## Beur

Tim In Cleveland said:


> It's YOU who lack basic reading skills. Collision is for the DRIVER'S car. Therefore, THERE IS COVERAGE but you must also have collision on your personal policy and there is a $1,000 deductible.
> THAT MEANS there is coverage for the DRIVER'S car THROUGH JAMES RIVERS to cover the DRIVER'S car during phase 1.
> But please, repeat the same darn thing 18 more times.


You are as thick headed as they come and apparently cannot comprehend the infographic provided by Uber that clearly states "*App on and waiting for a trip request*" which is *period 1*, then is states "*Personal Auto Insurance +Contingent Liability*." Then if you look at each of the liability amounts ($25k injury $100k injury total $25k property damage), none of which are related to collision, they have an asterisk (*), now look at the asterisked item at the bottom, what does it say? "**Provides automobile liability insurance if/when the driver's personal auto does not provide coverage.*"

I've taken the liberty to highlight ther pertinent details of period one coverage for you. On the bright side you've finally after "18 times" understand your coverage during periods 2 & 3! Now I know why my sister-in-law comes home exhausted after spending a day teaching Special Ed.


----------



## Tx rides

Beur said:


> You are as thick headed as they come and apparently cannot comprehend the infographic provided by Uber that clearly states "*App on and waiting for a trip request*" which is *period 1*, then is states "*Personal Auto Insurance +Contingent Liability*." Then if you look at each of the liability amounts ($25k injury $100k injury total $25k property damage), none of which are related to collision, they have an asterisk (*), now look at the asterisked item at the bottom, what does it say? "**Provides automobile liability insurance if/when the driver's personal auto does not provide coverage.*"
> 
> I've taken the liberty to highlight ther pertinent details of period one coverage for you. On the bright side you've finally after "18 times" understand your coverage during periods 2 & 3! Now I know why my sister-in-law comes home exhausted after spending a day teaching Special Ed.
> 
> View attachment 7449


I keep reading posts from some who claim phase 1 is now covered with Uber Primary through JR, but if that is true, why won't Uber update their coverage info? If a driver has, in hand, legally binding statements of Phase 1 coverage, then I can understand their confidence, but why wouldn't they share this evidence with others? I would publish this on every site accessible to me, to cover my own bases in the event of a future accident.


----------



## Beur

Tx rides said:


> I keep reading posts from some who claim phase 1 is now covered with Uber Primary through JR, but if that is true, why won't Uber update their coverage info? If a driver has, in hand, legally binding statements of Phase 1 coverage, then I can understand their confidence, but why wouldn't they share this evidence with others? I would publish this on every site accessible to me, to cover my own bases in the event of a future accident.


Some folks are just slower than others, you have to speak slowly and paint them pictures.


----------



## Berliner

Tx rides said:


> I keep reading posts from some who claim phase 1 is now covered with Uber Primary through JR, but if that is true, why won't Uber update their coverage info? If a driver has, in hand, legally binding statements of Phase 1 coverage, then I can understand their confidence, but why wouldn't they share this evidence with others? I would publish this on every site accessible to me, to cover my own bases in the event of a future accident.


Great idea. UberX-app on 24/7, and the drivers don´t need personal insurance any more. Acceptance rate zero %. Lol, worst-case-scenario for fluber.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Berliner said:


> Great idea. UberX-app on 24/7, and the drivers don´t need personal insurance any more. Acceptance rate zero %. Lol, worst-case-scenario for fluber.


That's just what I was about to say. Great minds think alike? What they should have is liability and comp/collision contingent on you having a personal policy. Regardless of if your personal then denies the policy is valid after an accident in period 1.

For all intents and purposes most drivers will say they were not working if an accident occurs during that time and will not have the sign up.

Here in Houston you have yo put up the uber sign but I only stick it in the window once I'm close to the pax in period 2 or parking in a commercial spot. Otherwise why tempt fate? There are people who will want to have an accident with you to sue uber just because if the sign. Same reason I wouldn't leave the pizza sign on my car.

A customer at Dominos the other day who had an off duty employee back into her car in the parking lot is trying to sue them. The employee is not a driver and was leaving work off the clock. The customer says she "must have been working because she was still wearing her work shirt."

Gotta love the litigious society.

FYI rarely does anyone get far suing Dominos over car wrecks. They fight them tooth and nail to avoid precedent (like uber). They got burned in the 30 minutes or free fiasco but that was a long time ago.


----------



## Tx rides

Berliner said:


> Great idea. UberX-app on 24/7, and the drivers don´t need personal insurance any more. Acceptance rate zero %. Lol, worst-case-scenario for fluber.


Many cities and states forbid being "on call" as a driver more than 12 hours. That is up to Uber/Lyft et al to resolve. The issue is that the gap exists, OR as some have claimed, it was closed. My point was: if it was closed, why isn't Uber providing evidence of that to drivers? This should not be something left to drivers, any injured parties, And PAP providers to figure out after an accident. And if the new coverage has been relayed to drivers, why are so many unaware of the change?

Lying and cheating to reduce out of pocket expenses is really nothing new, but it is a rising cost to insurance companies, thus a rising cost to PAPs if not addressed. Uber acts as if it is up to Drivers and their carriers to find a way to accept the risk, when it is their model which increased the risks exponentially.


----------



## Tx rides

Fuzzyelvis said:


> That's just what I was about to say. Great minds think alike? What they should have is liability and comp/collision contingent on you having a personal policy. Regardless of if your personal then denies the policy is valid after an accident in period 1.
> 
> For all intents and purposes most drivers will say they were not working if an accident occurs during that time and will not have the sign up.
> 
> Here in Houston you have yo put up the uber sign but I only stick it in the window once I'm close to the pax in period 2 or parking in a commercial spot. Otherwise why tempt fate? There are people who will want to have an accident with you to sue uber just because if the sign. Same reason I wouldn't leave the pizza sign on my car.
> 
> A customer at Dominos the other day who had an off duty employee back into her car in the parking lot is trying to sue them. The employee is not a driver and was leaving work off the clock. The customer says she "must have been working because she was still wearing her work shirt."
> 
> Gotta love the litigious society.
> 
> FYI rarely does anyone get far suing Dominos over car wrecks. They fight them tooth and nail to avoid precedent (like uber). They got burned in the 30 minutes or free fiasco but that was a long time ago.


They are successful going after the Franchisee, not as much the franchisor.


----------



## Berliner

Tx rides said:


> Many cities and states forbid being "on call" as a driver more than 12 hours.


I beg your pardon, we´re talking about uber. They have their own rules. Or not?


----------



## Tx rides

Berliner said:


> I beg your pardon, we´re talking about uber. They have their own rules. Or not?


That is true!!! Lol!


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Tim In Cleveland said:


> It's YOU who lack basic reading skills. Collision is for the DRIVER'S car. Therefore, THERE IS COVERAGE but you must also have collision on your personal policy and there is a $1,000 deductible.
> THAT MEANS there is coverage for the DRIVER'S car THROUGH JAMES RIVERS to cover the DRIVER'S car during phase 1.
> But please, repeat the same darn thing 18 more times.


I asked this before. But maybe you missed it:

Please ask your insurance what will happen if you have an accident that you cause while with the app on and driving around waiting for a ping.

If they cover you great. And by that I mean fix YOUR car and injuries as well as the other driver.

If they say no then ask Uber what they will cover when your insurance denies your claim for YOUR injuries and damaged car.
Thanks


----------



## Beur

Fuzzyelvis said:


> I asked this before. But maybe you missed it:
> 
> Please ask your insurance what will happen if you have an accident that you cause while with the app on and driving around waiting for a ping.
> 
> If they cover you great. And by that I mean fix YOUR car and injuries as well as the other driver.
> 
> If they say no then ask Uber what they will cover when your insurance denies your claim for YOUR injuries and damaged car.
> Thanks


Don't you get it Fuzzyelvis, Tim In Cleveland is the only driver Uber is covering under their James River policy during period one. He's 100% covered after he pays a $1,000 deductible.


----------



## Tim In Cleveland

I admit I misunderstood what it says now, and have written support for clarification. I agree it's not tolerable to expect a personal policy to cover collision in period 1 because NOT ONE in my state does. Sorry!


----------



## DriverJ

Beur said:


> Here let me do your research for you. This is straight from Esurnace's blog dated February 2014:
> 
> "*Esurance and TNCs*
> Though we can't speak for all insurance companies, the livery exclusion is pretty universal. *According to our definitions of coverage, TNC drivers would need commercial insurance since a personal auto policy through Esurance doesn't cover both personal and commercial use of a vehicle*. In all states except California, we're unable to offer a standard policy to TNC drivers. And in California, the driver's standard coverage doesn't apply during a rideshare trip.
> 
> If you're driving for a TNC, the California Department of Insurance urges you to contact your insurance company and see if there are gaps in your coverage that are putting you at risk. You might be better off with a commercial policy. (Esurance doesn't offer commercial auto insurance, but you can get it through our partner.) Since Lyft is already available in 20 cities (and UberX in dozens), this is good advice no matter where you live."
> 
> http://blog.esurance.com/are-you-sure-you-want-to-be-an-uberx-driver/#.VVZddHBHarU
> 
> Now you go ahead and continue driving HUA with improper insurance because a CSR incorrectly told you you were covered.


I just read, "If you're driving for Uber, no problem, we've got your back 24/7/365. You'll always have insurance coverage. Was that the gist of your post?


----------



## DriverJ

Tim In Cleveland said:


> I admit I misunderstood what it says now, and have written support for clarification. I agree it's not tolerable to expect a personal policy to cover collision in period 1 because NOT ONE in my state does. Sorry!


Lemme clarify - UBER SUCKS! Run away - better still - DRIVE AWAY WHILE YOU STILL HAVE A CAR!

Uber is a horrible company. Haven't you seen how they screw people and do business in general?


----------



## DriverJ

I believe the (very) risky and highly questionable piece of this, is the fact that you would be counting on Uber and James River Insurance to step up and do the right thing. I filed a claim with James River, via Uber, and it was flatly denied. The claims adjuster sounded like a college (community (small town)) kid, and he couldn't spell deductible (with spell-check). I believe that would come up from time-to-time in the field.

I should point out that Uber did step up to the plate on that one though. I wouldn't expect that in a very high-dollar claim.

Uber is a scam. It's very profitable for the company, the riders get mostly good service at ridiculously low prices, and it all comes from the driver's pockets.

John Lennon said it best...._*'You're all ****ing peasants, as far as I can see.'*_


----------



## DriverJ

Tim In Cleveland said:


> It's Beur that needs to give it up. His full of it. Collision is for the Driver's car ONLY. It has nothing to do with protecting the other party. That is a different category. You just repeat your lies endlessly.


Come back one year from today and tell us how your Uber career went.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

DriverJ said:


> I believe the (very) risky and highly questionable piece of this, is the fact that you would be counting on Uber and James River Insurance to step up and do the right thing. I filed a claim with James River, via Uber, and it was flatly denied. The claims adjuster sounded like a college (community (small town)) kid, and he couldn't spell deductible (with spell-check). I believe that would come up from time-to-time in the field.
> 
> I should point out that Uber did step up to the plate on that one though. I wouldn't expect that in a very high-dollar claim.
> 
> Uber is a scam. It's very profitable for the company, the riders get mostly good service at ridiculously low prices, and it all comes from the driver's pockets.
> 
> John Lennon said it best...._*'You're all ****ing peasants, as far as I can see.'*_


I wonder if they can get dead peasant insurance on contractors? A la Walmart. If you haven't heard of it Google. Walmart is evil too. My mom worked for them for a while.


----------



## DriverJ

Fuzzyelvis said:


> I wonder if they can get dead peasant insurance on contractors? A la Walmart. If you haven't heard of it Google. Walmart is evil too. My mom worked for them for a while.


Dead Peasant Insurance! Had never heard of it, but learning now. People suck. I wish they'd find life on another planet, and a way to get us (me!) there. It would have to be better than this crap. We'd just go there and screw that up too I guess.

I know Walmart sucks too, and on a grand scale. At least they've got their billion-dollar art museum though - IN THE ****ING OZARKS! I heard the first two pieces of art Alice Walton was going to add were 'Dogs Playing Poker,' and yes, a 'Velvet (Fuzzy) Elvis.' It's nice to know the very low population there can stop in and look at some high dollar art while on a **** hunt. YEE-HA!

It's like everyone keeps trying to outdo the last bunch of greedy, corporate assholes, and be the ones that ****ed the world up even more. I just don't get it. Do they believe at the end of it all they'll own the world? They'll get immortality? Maybe their peckers will grow (3) inches, and then they'll have (5)? Damn, start your business, make some money, do some good, and go enjoy life. People are so worried about ****ing everyone over they forget to live.


----------



## Toby

Tim In Cleveland said:


> AGAIN: It has the word "when", that means exclusion WHEN it's being used for livery and NOT other times and secondarily it does not mention voiding or cancelling a policy if it is every used.
> 
> You mock the CSR's word and fail to acknowledge that your's means even less.


Now that's a first...an Uber driver standing up for a CSR. Cool-aid SluRp


----------



## Toby

Tim In Cleveland said:


> I suspected all the doom and gloom worrymongers are full of it and have found that to be true for my company:
> 
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Auto insurance question
> Received: 5/14/2015 7:14:40 AM
> 
> Does providing livery services for Uber void my policy? Uber provides insurance from the time the driver turns the app on (is available to receive requests) and increases that insurance once a customer has requested a ride or is in the car. Personal insurance would be required when the driver turns the app off for lunch/break or done for the day.
> 
> If my car is damaged during an Uber covered period, for some reason, they expect me to submit a claim to you first. If denied, they will then cover my car...
> 
> Response from Esurance:
> 
> Dear ***,
> 
> Thanks for contacting Esurance.
> 
> Any type of vehicle usage that involves transporting people for a fee is specifically excluded from
> your policy, which means that we would not provide coverage while you are driving for Uber. If you are off the clock, your policy applies.
> 
> We hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions, please call our customer service center at 1-800-ESURANCE (1-800-378-7262) or you may reply to this email. We're here for you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
> 
> As always, thank you for being an Esurance policyholder.
> 
> Sincerely,
> The Esurance Customer Service Team
> 
> So, no...I am not cancelled merely for working for Uber and am covered any time I'm off the clock.


You asked specifically about coverage for your car, which makes sense because you can't get past what is best for you.

How about you ask if your e-surance covers medical insurance in the case you are at fault?


----------



## J. D.

kuber10 said:


> I just called my agent for Erie insurance after being scared for awhile from reading posts on this site. She confirmed with corporate, as long as I am only driving part time, my personal policy will cover me when the app is off. When the app is on, I'm covered only by the uber policy. She mentioned that Erie is piloting policies and add-ons in other states for ride share drivers, but not in PA where I am, yet.


I did the same with my carrier. As long as I am less than 50%, they cover me. But here's my problem. My last week, Uber miles 511, personal miles 12. Even though I only drove on the weekend, I'm considered full time based on the car and may be denied coverage by my insurance. Even though it's still kinda gray, I'm not taking the chance.


----------



## ALEAX

Maybe this will help you guys define what you're talking about. http://www.insurance.ca.gov/01-consumers/105-type/95-guides/01-auto/autoterms.cfm


----------



## 3for3

Im from the Metropolitan D.C. area and have been constantly shopping insurance that would better suit my situation. I have found that Geico is the only insurer out at this present time in my market that offer insurance for ridesharing. Erie, Esurance and others in my market have said that I am not covered if I was to get into a collision and am at risk of having my policy canceled.


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA

This should help define "off the clock."

http://insurancethoughtleadership.c...for-all-states/#sthash.nNvUCspl.pgQBv1JV.dpbs

According to the law in California, turning the app off and driving home does not mean off the clock. I'm not saying the insurance company will deny a claim during this period, but they certainly have the legal basis to.

And this $1000 deductible that you would have to work about 125 hours to pay for, should be paid by the company, but that's a different discussion.


----------



## troubleinrivercity

don’t ever mention uber to your insurance company, dealer, or financing company, if you do you are dumb end of story.

lots of smartasses and would-be lawyers in here begging for Geiallstatefarm to send them a cancellation letter. They genuinely don’t want to know. Don’t make them do their jobs.


----------



## Huberis

Tim In Cleveland said:


> I admit I misunderstood what it says now, and have written support for clarification. I agree it's not tolerable to expect a personal policy to cover collision in period 1 because NOT ONE in my state does. Sorry!


Pissing matches can make people inclined to see what they want to see. It sounds as if the insurance companies are learning to game the gamers. In my opinion. They seem to be catching on: Sure, they will insure you. They will insure you for the same money and a fraction of your driving. If there are gaps in the coverage, well that is in Uber's lap or James River's lap, most likely, it will be in your lap.

Better set aside that $1000 deductible. Ever notice how long it seems to take drivers to get their cars back on the road when relying on James River? Actually. I have no idea how quick they are, you might want to ask around.

Mark my words: If Uber finds this new insurance relationship costs them, they will quickly respond.

Let us know what the response was to your letter. They may thank you for reaching out.


----------



## Tim In Cleveland

It has now been 3 days with no reply:
They don't supply it and can't name a single company in my state that does.


----------



## Huberis

Tim In Cleveland said:


> It has now been 3 days with no reply:
> They don't supply it and can't name a single company in my state that does.


Well, good luck. Uber has their ass covered. Your insurance company has their as covered. You have your ass covered to the extent that they aren't going to cancel you outright. You still have a lot of flesh exposed to the elements.

That would not work for me. I don't think it is the kind of thing municipalities want from people doing business in their community. The people who will really truly suffer are the young, new drivers who bought into all the bullshit from Uber. In the end, they will be held responsible and they will suffer the consequences.

There is a hell of a chance a person could lose their car from an accident in phase one. That is not good for the economy to allow that to happen.


----------



## Tim In Cleveland

My concern is that any financed auto, whether purchased or lease, requires full coverage insurance and that isn't possible with no collision coverage in period one. It is simply illegal. Uber needs to step up and provide it at least until a few companies in Ohio include it.


----------



## observer

Tx rides said:


> I keep reading posts from some who claim phase 1 is now covered with Uber Primary through JR, but if that is true, why won't Uber update their coverage info? If a driver has, in hand, legally binding statements of Phase 1 coverage, then I can understand their confidence, but why wouldn't they share this evidence with others? I would publish this on every site accessible to me, to cover my own bases in the event of a future accident.


It may have something to do with Ubers coverage not being the same everywhere.

In California phase one is mandated by CPUC,

http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/Enforcement/TNC/TNC+Insurance+Requirements.htm

Uber is using a divide and conquer strategy to keep states and municipalities in the dark about what it has all ready agreed to do In other jurisdictions.


----------



## Huberis

Tim In Cleveland said:


> My concern is that any financed auto, whether purchased or lease, requires full coverage insurance and that isn't possible with no collision coverage in period one. It is simply illegal. Uber needs to step up and provide it at least until a few companies in Ohio include it.


Your concern is legit. It would be very unwise to have have anything less than full coverage on a financed auto, that is how it should be.

Are you still driving for hire?


----------



## Tx rides

observer said:


> It may have something to do with Ubers coverage not being the same everywhere.
> 
> In California phase one is mandated by CPUC,
> 
> http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/Enforcement/TNC/TNC+Insurance+Requirements.htm
> 
> Uber is using a divide and conquer strategy to keep states and municipalities in the dark about what it has all ready agreed to do In other jurisdictions.


They should have per-state insurance guidance like they do for other aspects. I know of a couple of corporations who have sent out notes to their employees they will not recommend nor reimburse for the use of Uber because of this. In some cases, companies do not want them on their property because of these issues. I do not toss the term "greed" around very loosely, as I don't necessarily believe that "greed" is inherently bad. I make the exception here.it is one thing to beat out competitors by having a better game. But when you have cheated, and intentionally misled all stakeholders to enhance the game, it's a different story. (Lance Armstrong comes to mind )


----------



## Lidman

Tx rides said:


> They should have per-state insurance guidance like they do for other aspects. I know of a couple of corporations who have sent out notes to their employees they will not recommend nor reimburse for the use of Uber because of this. In some cases, companies do not want them on their property because of these issues. I do not toss the term "greed" around very loosely, as I don't necessarily believe that "greed" is inherently bad. I make the exception here.it is one thing to beat out competitors by having a better game. But when you have cheated, and intentionally misled all stakeholders to enhance the game, it's a different story. (Lance Armstrong comes to mind )


You're right. There are some that believe greed is good. That greed clarifies, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.


----------



## Tim In Cleveland

Tx rides said:


> They should have per-state insurance guidance like they do for other aspects. I know of a couple of corporations who have sent out notes to their employees they will not recommend nor reimburse for the use of Uber because of this. In some cases, companies do not want them on their property because of these issues. I do not toss the term "greed" around very loosely, as I don't necessarily believe that "greed" is inherently bad. I make the exception here.it is one thing to beat out competitors by having a better game. But when you have cheated, and intentionally misled all stakeholders to enhance the game, it's a different story. (Lance Armstrong comes to mind )


They won't allow Uber because the driver's car isn't insured? That inflicts no risks on the corporation and the driver wouldn't be there unless in phase 2 or 3. It's also stupid to ban Uber over "unpredictable rates due to surge". Just tell your employees not to use Uber during a surge or the employee pays the surge portion themselves.


----------



## Tx rides

Tim In Cleveland said:


> They won't allow Uber because the driver's car isn't insured? That inflicts no risks on the corporation and the driver wouldn't be there unless in phase 2 or 3. It's also stupid to ban Uber over "unpredictable rates due to surge". Just tell your employees not to use Uber during a surge or the employee pays the surge portion themselves.


False, Tim. We've been down the phase 1 road before, I'm not rehashing it with you. Another corporate policy which I have direct knowledge of was also written due to Uber's fights over background checks in multiple areas.


----------



## DrJeecheroo

Tx rides said:


> False, Tim. We've been down the phase 1 road before, I'm not rehashing it with you. Another corporate policy which I have direct knowledge of was also written due to Uber's fights over background checks in multiple areas.


Exactly!!


----------



## DrJeecheroo

DriverJ said:


> Come back one year from today and tell us how your Uber career went.


If it even lasts that long. Instead ask him, "come back in one month from today and cry to us how your guber career went.


----------



## Huberis

Tx rides said:


> False, Tim. We've been down the phase 1 road before, I'm not rehashing it with you. Another corporate policy which I have direct knowledge of was also written due to Uber's fights over background checks in multiple areas.


I would guess such a corporation simply is aware of all the controversy surrounding them and decides then and there to cut them off at the pass. They simply may not want what they stand for operating on their campus..... something to that effect. They don't want any potential hassle and they want easily identifiable cars coming and going. SOmething to that effect.


----------



## Enoch Shadkam

Tim In Cleveland said:


> I suspected all the doom and gloom worrymongers are full of it and have found that to be true for my company:
> 
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Auto insurance question
> Received: 5/14/2015 7:14:40 AM
> 
> Does providing livery services for Uber void my policy? Uber provides insurance from the time the driver turns the app on (is available to receive requests) and increases that insurance once a customer has requested a ride or is in the car. Personal insurance would be required when the driver turns the app off for lunch/break or done for the day.
> 
> If my car is damaged during an Uber covered period, for some reason, they expect me to submit a claim to you first. If denied, they will then cover my car...
> 
> Response from Esurance:
> 
> Dear ***,
> 
> Thanks for contacting Esurance.
> 
> Any type of vehicle usage that involves transporting people for a fee is specifically excluded from
> your policy, which means that we would not provide coverage while you are driving for Uber. If you are off the clock, your policy applies.
> 
> We hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions, please call our customer service center at 1-800-ESURANCE (1-800-378-7262) or you may reply to this email. We're here for you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
> 
> As always, thank you for being an Esurance policyholder.
> 
> Sincerely,
> The Esurance Customer Service Team
> 
> So, no...I am not cancelled merely for working for Uber and am covered any time I'm off the clock.


That means you're not coverd by your personal insurance


----------



## Tx rides

Huberis said:


> I would guess such a corporation simply is aware of all the controversy surrounding them and decides then and there to cut them off at the pass. They simply may not want what they stand for operating on their campus..... something to that effect. They don't want any potential hassle and they want easily identifiable cars coming and going. SOmething to that effect.


Precisely. Everyone knows that in the case of litigation, he who has the most to lose moves forward 2 spaces. When companies enable the transaction, either by promoting, arranging, or reimbursing, they can get sucked in to a lawsuit. I know one CEO who read the TCs and Cs and asked us to explain the difference with Uber Black. At the time, his company did use Black in SF. He was met by a "nasty old Corolla "in Chicago. He was furious. He was unfamiliar with X and must have inadvertently selected that on his app. This caused him to really read the TCs and Cs and once he realized the diff between black and X, and others in the company had made the same mistake, he sent a note to all saying "no mas".
That kind of sucked for the UberBlack providers....but they have really strict security guidelines for their execs.


----------



## ForHeisRisen

Esurance gave me a non-renewal of my policy with them in October, 2015. I am in the Seattle market and we have Senator Bill 5550 that has been passed which should have cleared up any issues with getting personal insurance. I called again 2 weeks ago to switch from Metromile to Esurance. Distance still flatly denies my ability to get a policy with them solely based on me being an Uber driver. I don't believe the statement that Esurance will provide a policy based on first hand knowledge and experience.


----------



## Tim In Cleveland

ForHeisRisen said:


> Esurance gave me a non-renewal of my policy with them in October, 2015. I am in the Seattle market and we have Senator Bill 5550 that has been passed which should have cleared up any issues with getting personal insurance. I called again 2 weeks ago to switch from Metromile to Esurance. Distance still flatly denies my ability to get a policy with them solely based on me being an Uber driver. I don't believe the statement that Esurance will provide a policy based on first hand knowledge and experience.


. It must be a state by state issue. I have them. They were fully told I drive for Uber. They have not cancelled me.


----------



## Istvan

And when you get in a car accident while driving for Uber they only cover passengers , i think thats what people saying in some posts


----------



## blackice

Just wanted to say thanks to the OP. Got a policy with esurance this morning due to this thread. Got a great rate and was able to fully disclose my rideshare activities, unlike with my previous company.


----------

