# If you had an accident while the app was on



## Roogy (Nov 4, 2014)

The insurance coverage is really poor when the app is on but you're not driving to a fare nor transporting someone. If you got into an accident while the app was merely on, wouldn't you just turn it off and close your phone, and file a claim with your personal insurance? How would your insurance ever know if the app that the app was "on" and the time of the accident? Trying to figure out if there's something I'm missing here...

p.s. tried to post the uberXridesharinginsurance link, but still too new.


----------



## LookyLou (Apr 28, 2014)

You are not missing anything. This is the way I would handle the situation.


----------



## floridog (Aug 31, 2014)

Roogy said:


> The insurance coverage is really poor when the app is on but you're not driving to a fare nor transporting someone. If you got into an accident while the app was merely on, wouldn't you just turn it off and close your phone, and file a claim with your personal insurance? How would your insurance ever know if the app that the app was "on" and the time of the accident? Trying to figure out if there's something I'm missing here...
> 
> p.s. tried to post the uberXridesharinginsurance link, but still too new.


Because committing a felony can give you major jail time!!!


----------



## UBRLOU (Nov 4, 2014)

What would you give the police in case of an accident?
I have Emailed Uber a few times with no help. 
Can't really tell the Cops ...I have to email you this information...They will want proof of Insurance on the spot.
Uber Should Email Drivers a Generic Insurance Card.


----------



## mp775 (Jun 26, 2014)

floridog said:


> Because committing a felony can give you major jail time!!!


How is it a felony? If you don't have a passenger, you're not engaging in commercial activity.


----------



## mp775 (Jun 26, 2014)

UBRLOU said:


> What would you give the police in case of an accident?
> I have Emailed Uber a few times with no help.
> Can't really tell the Cops ...I have to email you this information...They will want proof of Insurance on the spot.
> Uber Should Email Drivers a Generic Insurance Card.


There is a link to the insurance certificate at the bottom of the Waybill. Electronic insurance cards are OK in some jurisdictions.


----------



## Worcester Sauce (Aug 20, 2014)

Roogy said:


> The insurance coverage is really poor when the app is on but you're not driving to a fare nor transporting someone. If you got into an accident while the app was merely on, wouldn't you just turn it off and close your phone, and file a claim with your personal insurance? How would your insurance ever know if the app that the app was "on" and the time of the accident? Trying to figure out if there's something I'm missing here...
> 
> p.s. tried to post the uberXridesharinginsurance link, but still too new.


merely turning your app off wont help. Cell phones ping off cell towers and leave a signature.


----------



## Worcester Sauce (Aug 20, 2014)

mp775 said:


> How is it a felony? If you don't have a passenger, you're not engaging in commercial activity.


you are correct...no felony. But having the app on is commercial activity


----------



## Sean O'Gorman (Apr 17, 2014)

Your insurance company would likely never be able to prove you were on the app at the time of the accident, mostly because A) they won't think to ask, and B) it would be a pointless endeavor for them to try and subpoena Uber for this kind of record. That being said, turning off the app immediately after the accident doesn't make you suddenly simply driving without the app on. That's like buying an insurance policy 5 minutes after an accident and assuming you're covered because the start date is the same as the accident date. You'd be amazed at how many uninsured drivers will get online on their phone at the accident scene and purchase a policy.

The main thing is, if the app is on and you're not picking up a rider or currently have a rider in the vehicle, how would anyone even know?


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Roogy said:


> The insurance coverage is really poor when the app is on but you're not driving to a fare nor transporting someone. If you got into an accident while the app was merely on, wouldn't you just turn it off and close your phone, and file a claim with your personal insurance? How would your insurance ever know if the app that the app was "on" and the time of the accident? Trying to figure out if there's something I'm missing here...
> 
> p.s. tried to post the uberXridesharinginsurance link, but still too new.


If a driver thinks they may need Uber's supposed secondary insurance coverage and DIDN'T list Uber as an insured party on the accident report good luck with that one too. Uber could even have an issue with not reporting when they are on second base. It would appear to be a gap in their requirements for drivers, to have them report ALL accidents when they might be in second place.

So yeah, do the math before the incident.


----------



## Worcester Sauce (Aug 20, 2014)

Sean O'Gorman said:


> Your insurance company would likely never be able to prove you were on the app at the time of the accident, mostly because A) they won't think to ask, and B) it would be a pointless endeavor for them to try and subpoena Uber for this kind of record. That being said, turning off the app immediately after the accident doesn't make you suddenly simply driving without the app on. That's like buying an insurance policy 5 minutes after an accident and assuming you're covered because the start date is the same as the accident date. You'd be amazed at how many uninsured drivers will get online on their phone at the accident scene and purchase a policy.
> 
> The main thing is, if the app is on and you're not picking up a rider or currently have a rider in the vehicle, how would anyone even know?


I find many of your assumptions, assertions and "logic" to be based upon very shaky ground, despite your claim to be an expert insurance adjuster. People who may blindly listen to your "professional advice" do so at their extreme peril. As I said before.....what is some poor bastard going to say to the judge??? But your honor..."Sean Gorman said it was OK"? You gonna go to court with the folks on this website that listen to your erroneous advice??


----------



## Sean O'Gorman (Apr 17, 2014)

What's so shaky about my logic. The burden of proof is on the insurer to prove that the app was on, which is basically impossible.

Quick, true or false: I am currently logged in to the Uber Partner app as we speak.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Worcester Sauce said:


> I find many of your assumptions, assertions and "logic" to be based upon very shaky ground, despite your claim to be an expert insurance adjuster. People who may blindly listen to your "professional advice" do so at their extreme peril. As I said before.....what is some poor bastard going to say to the judge??? But your honor..."Sean Gorman said it was OK"? You gonna go to court with the folks on this website that listen to your erroneous advice??


Finding out if any person is ride sharing in some states is as easy as clicking a couple links for DOT physical records.

Drivers think they can scam the system, and the shit for pay forces them to do it. That has never worked out for me in any business. I always plan on avoiding the 'system' because if you think Uber is bad, the legal/insurance industry are professionally bad at screwing people. Everyday run of the mill stuff is better than it used to be in some ways, but you don't want to get outside the lines if you're a thinking person.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Sean O'Gorman said:


> What's so shaky about my logic. The burden of proof is on the insurer to prove that the app was on, which is basically impossible.
> 
> Quick, true or false: I am currently logged in to the Uber Partner app as we speak.


It's going to be very easy for any investigator, IF they wanted to, to stop by Uber or Lyft to see if a driver was ride sharing. And in a lawsuit resulting from an accident it is only a couple pieces of paper for any attorney to subpena driving records and logged time, which I'm sure ride share companies will comply with.


----------



## Sean O'Gorman (Apr 17, 2014)

The insurance industry doesn't "screw" people. It just has a bad reputation because it is a product that everyone has to buy, but no one wants to; therefore, they have unrealistic expectations. 

I do agree though that lawyers are a major root of problems in this country. Everything that is fun that you can't do is because some lawyer ruined it. You can't sue anyone for anything without immediately racking up thousands of dollars in legal fees, and you can't be bothered to defend genuine cases because defense attorneys cost thousands of dollars too.


----------



## Sean O'Gorman (Apr 17, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> It's going to be very easy for any investigator, IF they wanted to, to stop by Uber or Lyft to see if a driver was ride sharing. And in a lawsuit resulting from an accident it is only a couple pieces of paper for any attorney to subpena driving records and logged time, which I'm sure ride share companies will comply with.


A) Uber is not going to willingly share that information to an outside party, and B) short of a six figure injury or fatality, no insurance company is going to even consider subpoenaing Uber or Lyft for these records, especially if they have no indication that a driver was ridesharing. It's simply not cost effective.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Sean O'Gorman said:


> The insurance industry doesn't "screw" people. *It just has a bad reputation* because it is a product that everyone has to buy, but no one wants to; therefore, they have unrealistic expectations.
> 
> I do agree though that* lawyers are a major root of problems in this country.* Everything that is fun that you can't do is because some lawyer ruined it. *You can't sue anyone for anything without immediately racking up thousands of dollars in legal fees, and you can't be bothered to defend genuine cases because defense attorneys cost thousands of dollars too*.


Since we don't agree on too much with regards to certain subjects we are in spot on agreement on the bold above.

The system in general is becoming rapidly transparent for everyone. *Figuring out if somebody is 'ride sharing' with most of these young drivers is as easy as opening up FaceBook, I would suspect, for the majority.*


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Sean O'Gorman said:


> A) Uber is not going to willingly share that information to an outside party, and B) short of a six figure injury or fatality, no insurance company is going to even consider subpoenaing Uber or Lyft for these records, especially if they have no indication that a driver was ridesharing. It's simply not cost effective.


Oh hell. They sure as hell don't want the bad PR of not cooperating with the system. Any attorney and a good PR firm would have a field day with those stories.


----------



## Worcester Sauce (Aug 20, 2014)

Sean O'Gorman said:


> What's so shaky about my logic. The burden of proof is on the insurer to prove that the app was on, which is basically impossible.
> 
> Quick, true or false: I am currently logged in to the Uber Partner app as we speak.


Surely someone with your vast reservoir of knowledge understands how easy it is to perform a cell tower interrogation.


----------



## Sean O'Gorman (Apr 17, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> Since we don't agree on too much with regards to certain subjects we are in spot on agreement on the bold above.
> 
> The system in general is becoming rapidly transparent for everyone. *Figuring out if somebody is 'ride sharing' with most of these young drivers is as easy as opening up FaceBook, I would suspect, for the majority.*


You'd be surprised. On rare occasions, I'll turn to Facebook or Twitter to look up a first or third party claimant in an accident (typically only if I'm trying to find a phone number or email address for them), and the majority of people have their privacy settings pretty locked down. All of my social media posts are public because I have nothing to hide, but I've found that I'm in the minority.

I notice too that whenever I have a friend who is going through an insurance claim, not only do they change their privacy settings, but they'll change their Facebook name to an alias as well.


----------



## Sean O'Gorman (Apr 17, 2014)

Worcester Sauce said:


> Surely someone with your vast reservoir of knowledge understands how easy it is to perform a cell tower interrogation.


Please elaborate. Are you talking phone call/text records, or the location history?


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Sean O'Gorman said:


> You'd be surprised. On rare occasions, I'll turn to Facebook or Twitter to look up a first or third party claimant in an accident (typically only if I'm trying to find a phone number or email address for them), and the majority of people have their privacy settings pretty locked down. All of my social media posts are public because I have nothing to hide, but I've found that I'm in the minority.
> 
> I notice too that whenever I have a friend who is going through an insurance claim, not only do they change their privacy settings, but they'll change their Facebook name to an alias as well.


These idiot/children drivers don't have the sense that God gave a duck. They plaster their entire moment to moment lives in social media.

I suspect that insurance carriers may even resort to picking off their insureds names coupled with various terms related to ride share in the social media sphere.

And if the driver hasn't already pulled their ride share pants down in public, one or more of their 'friends' have.


----------



## Worcester Sauce (Aug 20, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> These idiot/children drivers don't have the sense that God gave a duck. They plaster their entire moment to moment lives in social media.
> 
> I suspect that insurance carriers may even resort to picking off their insureds names coupled with various terms related to ride share in the social media sphere.
> 
> And if the driver hasn't already pulled their ride share pants down in public, one or more of their 'friends' have.


perfectly said


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Worcester Sauce said:


> perfectly said


Drivers who think there are insurance secrets available in this world are probably the same guys who think they can cheat on their spouses and not have their wife eventually hear about it. It just ain't gonna happen.

THERE ARE NO SECRETS in today's society.


----------



## Worcester Sauce (Aug 20, 2014)

Sean O'Gorman said:


> A) Uber is not going to willingly share that information to an outside party, and B) short of a six figure injury or fatality, no insurance company is going to even consider subpoenaing Uber or Lyft for these records, especially if they have no indication that a driver was ridesharing. It's simply not cost effective.


...as a "seasoned insurance adjuster" you should know better.... and not be spewing such vague generalities and irresponsible hypothetical assumptions. Some poor ill-informed person on this website might actually take what you are saying to heart.
When some poor bastard (driver) is sitting in front of a video camera in a closed conference room after being duly sworn in (under pains of perjury), and then is deposed by attorneys....that driver will spill his/her guts while simultaneously crapping their pants.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Drivers may think they can start with a 'little white insurance lie' but once yer tittie is in the systems's wringer and you LIE, you are SCCCCAAAAArewed! Big money people know how to lie and get away with it because they have attorneys who train them in the finer points of obfuscation and legally lying but us poor people don't have that privilege. They put us in JAIL for that shit.


----------



## Worcester Sauce (Aug 20, 2014)

Sean O'Gorman said:


> A) Uber is not going to willingly share that information to an outside party, and B) short of a six figure injury or fatality, no insurance company is going to even consider subpoenaing Uber or Lyft for these records, especially if they have no indication that a driver was ridesharing. It's simply not cost effective.


Jesus, Sean.....WTF!! Are you over-medicated?? Seriously?? "It's simply not cost effective (you say)"?? BS!! It is simply not cost effective for them *NOT TO DO SO.* It is a matter of the most elementary due diligence. Dude, you are embarrassing yourself.


----------



## scrurbscrud (Sep 11, 2014)

Worcester Sauce said:


> Jesus, Sean.....WTF!! Are you over-medicated?? Seriously?? "It's simply not cost effective (you say)"?? BS!! It is simply not cost effective for them *NOT TO DO SO.* It is a matter of the most elementary due diligence. Dude, you are embarrassing yourself.


Sean obviously works in a small environment. Where I hang out claims mitigation procedures at every angle by adjusters and investigators is the standard methodology. They are the only survivors and yeah, that's a big part of HOW insurance companies make their money. By not being dumbasses.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

scrurbscrud said:


> Drivers who think there are insurance secrets available in this world are probably the same guys who think they can cheat on their spouses and not have their wife eventually hear about it. It just ain't gonna happen.
> 
> THERE ARE NO SECRETS in today's society.


One way to find out if you are driving your car for a living in California, your Smog Check. Every two years you go in and get smogged. They log down your mileage. When you get your insurance coverage, agent asks you how much you drive, usually 6K- 10K miles per year. So, if you have been driving 50K miles a year it will show up on your smog check and raise BIG RED flags with your agent. How do I know about this you ask?? My insurance agent told me!! I went in for a renewal he asked my average yearly mileage, I didn't know, so he says here let me look up your smog check information on my computer....


----------



## Walkersm (Apr 15, 2014)

observer said:


> One way to find out if you are driving your car for a living in California, your Smog Check. Every two years you go in and get smogged. They log down your mileage. When you get your insurance coverage, agent asks you how much you drive, usually 6K- 10K miles per year. So, if you have been driving 50K miles a year it will show up on your smog check and raise BIG RED flags with your agent. How do I know about this you ask?? My insurance agent told me!! I went in for a renewal he asked my average yearly mileage, I didn't know, so he says here let me look up your smog check information on my computer....


Do Hybrids get smog checks? Maybe that's why so many people run them.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/?1dmy&urile=wcm:path:/dmv_content_en/dmv/vr/smogfaq#BM2536


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Good question. Apparently hybrids were exempt until this month. The technology had not been developed yet. I think most drivers of hybrids like them because of their fuel efficiency.


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

mp775 said:


> How is it a felony? If you don't have a passenger, you're not engaging in commercial activity.


Actually, if you are departing, say, a gated neighborhood , after dropping a pax, lawyers would claim you were there commercially, and you'd have a hard time proving otherwise. Same if you just dropped at the airport. Or a hotel. If it is a serious accident, (say you hit a pedestrian) there will likely be some witnesses who can peg you as a known driver-maybe even the pax you just dropped.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Trucks carrying merchandise that are empty have just as much liability as when they are full. If you got hit by an empty truck and it was their fault you would expect to get paid.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

observer said:


> Trucks carrying merchandise that are empty have just as much liability as when they are full. If you got hit by an empty truck and it was their fault you would expect to get paid.


Just because you had already dropped off passenger, doesn't mean your liability has stopped that moment. Like in the truck example you are still liable. If someone did get seriously hurt and they suspected you were ubering, a lawyer would sue both driver and Uber. That is what is happening with the little girl the Uber driver in SF killed. He had no passenger in vehicle either.


----------



## mp775 (Jun 26, 2014)

Tx rides said:


> Actually, if you are departing, say, a gated neighborhood , after dropping a pax, lawyers would claim you were there commercially, and you'd have a hard time proving otherwise. Same if you just dropped at the airport. Or a hotel. If it is a serious accident, (say you hit a pedestrian) there will likely be some witnesses who can peg you as a known driver-maybe even the pax you just dropped.


If an accident happened while I was departing a gated commercial park after leaving work, am I "there commercially"? I wouldn't have been there if not for commuting. Such is the gray area of "ridesharing."


----------



## Tx rides (Sep 15, 2014)

mp775 said:


> If an accident happened while I was departing a gated commercial park after leaving work, am I "there commercially"? I wouldn't have been there if not for commuting. Such is the gray area of "ridesharing."


If you dropped a fare, yes, you were commercial. It is easy to show why you were there. If you work there, you can easily show that. But the problem is that insurance companies are widely rejecting the responsibility of figuring that out per incident, for good reason. It is too risky to assume the costs without the challenge, it is too costly to challenge, thus either way, rates will be higher for personally owned livery policies. Sure, they will be developed, but they will be considerably higher. That is just the cost of doing business for hire in a high risk service industry.


----------

