# For the new drivers - Best practices



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

_I post this every month or so for the benefit of our new driver friends and new forum members._

Uber best practices for safety, high ratings, and profit maximization.

• Don't even think about driving until you've purchased a commercial livery insurance policy. That'll run you about $4500 per year so you're going to be doing a lot of driving at first. But you really have no choice in the matter. Your personal insurance company is going to drop you if they learn you're driving for Uber. And the Uber contingent liability policy DOES NOT cover your medical claim or your property claim in the event you are involved in an at-fault accident.
• Never pick up a pax with a rating lower than 4.7. (Jesus, how hard is it to be a 5-star pax? How about not being a ******bag?)
• Never respond to a ping more than 10 minutes away. (Yes, it might be a decent fare, but the odds are against you.)
• If you're traveling, never respond to a ping behind you.
• When you arrive at pickup location and pax is not present, DO NOT call or text the pax. Start a stop watch and cancel at 5:01 and move on.
• For the love of God, NEVER had out gum, candy, mints, water, etc. to paxs. There is no upside, it costs you money, and it creates more mess for you to clean up.
• If a pax leaves something behind in your car. DO NOT make the effort to return it. If you follow Uber's rules it'll actually cost you money and time to return it. If the pax needs it back, he/she will track you down through Uber. When that happens you can negotiate an appropriate fee to return the item. It doesn't matter what the item is - wallet, phone, eyeglasses, event tickets, clothing, jewelry, etc.
• ABC - Always Be Compensated. You're an independent contractor. Don't do anything without being paid. If you wish to run your car as a charity the folks over at Meals on Wheels would love to speak with you.

Some of these items may seem a little harsh to the new driver, but time and experience will show you that these practices not only work, but that they work very well. As a new driver, there's no value in re-inventing the wheel, as it were.
-------------------


----------



## Realityshark (Sep 22, 2014)

Here are some helpful tips for the new drivers:

http://www.uberpeople.net/threads/helpful-tips-for-all-the-new-drivers-part-1.30099/


----------



## merkurfan (Jul 20, 2015)

at .85 cents a mile the first one will be impossible to pay for 

So for most it goes like this..
delete the app
go do something else.


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

merkurfan said:


> at .85 cents a mile the first one will be impossible to pay for
> 
> So for most it goes like this..
> delete the app
> go do something else.


Exactly! The insurance hurdle is a total deal-breaker for drivers who want to be safe and have the "luxury" of insurance.


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

Realityshark said:


> Here are some helpful tips for the new drivers:
> 
> http://www.uberpeople.net/threads/helpful-tips-for-all-the-new-drivers-part-1.30099/


I loved your work there, Shark! Well done!


----------



## UberTDI (Aug 2, 2015)

Desert Driver said:


> Uber contingent liability policy DOES NOT cover your medical claim or your property claim in the event you are involved in an at-fault accident.


Are you referring to the "App on, no ride accepted" period? If so, this is correct.

From the time you accept a ride to the time the PAX leaves your car, you are covered by the James River policy for liability, as well as collision and comprehensive with $1K deductables.

There is an insurance gap, but it's not as large as some make it out to be. Your personal insurance *may* cover you during this period. Once you've dropped off a PAX, go offline, drive your car to a parking spot and then go back on line. Your liability is practically ZERO if your car is parked, and further so off / (or even better, unoccupied.)


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

UberTDI said:


> Are you referring to the "App on, no ride accepted" period? If so, this is correct.
> 
> From the time you accept a ride to the time the PAX leaves your car, you are covered by the James River policy for liability, as well as collision and comprehensive with $1K deductables.
> 
> There is an insurance gap, but it's not as large as some make it out to be. Your personal insurance *may* cover you during this period. Once you've dropped off a PAX, go offline, drive your car to a parking spot and then go back on line. Your liability is practically ZERO if your car is parked, and further so off / (or even better, unoccupied.)


Let me be clear here: If an Uber driver is involved in an at-fault incident with the app on and pax in car, the James River policy covers injury and property damage liability for the pax, other drivers, or pedestrians injured by the at-fault Uber driver. The James River policy _does not_ cover medical needs of Uber driver or the property damage to the Uber driver's automobile, although the literature provided by Uber on this topic will lead a driver to believe otherwise. This was explained to me by Chris Boedecker, VP Risk Mgmt for Uber. To date, Uber has honored virtually no claims for property damage to Uber drivers' automobiles.


----------



## UberTDI (Aug 2, 2015)

Desert Driver said:


> Let me be clear here: If an Uber driver is involved in an at-fault incident with the app on and pax in car, the James River policy covers injury and property damage liability for the pax, other drivers, or pedestrians injured by the at-fault Uber driver. The James River policy _does not_ cover medical needs of Uber driver or the property damage to the Uber driver's automobile, although the literature provided by Uber on this topic will lead a driver to believe otherwise. This was explained to me by Chris Boedecker, VP Risk Mgmt for Uber. To date, Uber has honored virtually no claims for property damage to Uber drivers' automobiles.


With regard to medical, you would be correct in some states. In certain states, personal injury protection is provided.

Otherwise, your statement on driver's vehicle coverage is directly contradictory to the policy terms outlined here:

http://newsroom.uber.com/2014/02/insurance-for-uberx-with-ridesharing/

It also contradictory to the example presented here by an ACTUAL UBER DRIVER:

https://uberpeople.net/threads/uber-insurance-claim.29458/

It is also contradictory to the response I received form Uber when asking this question:



Ariel from Uber said:


> Hi UberTDI,
> 
> Thanks for writing in! Below, you can find an overview of how insurance works for rideshare drivers with Uber. You can always read a more detailed overviewhere.
> 
> ...


I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm just saying that there's enough evidence that points in the other direction to seriously question your claims.


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

UberTDI said:


> With regard to medical, you would be correct in some states. In certain states, personal injury protection is provided.
> 
> Otherwise, your statement on driver's vehicle coverage is directly contradictory to the policy terms outlined here:
> 
> ...


The simple fact of the matter is that if a person is driving for Uber and does not have a commercial livery insurance policy in place, that person is taking a huge risk and could end up losing much. Personally, I wouldn't dare drive for Uber without my livery policy. Because when Uber's VP of Risk Management tells you that the James River insurance policy definitely will not cover the driver's injuries and likely will not cover the driver's property damage, you know you're flirting with disaster.

Here's the way Uber typically plays the insurance game when a driver gets into a wreck...

Before you can drive for Uber, you have to prove that you have personal automobile insurance on you vehicle. That's one of the pieces of documentation you have to provide before you're allowed to start driving. However, here is how the claim-rejection sequence typically plays out.

1) Uber driver is involved in an at-fault accident.
2) Uber driver notifies Uber and speaks to a James River claims specialist.
3) James River tells driver to first file the claim with his personal insurance company.
4) Uber driver follows the above instructions. He is then dropped by his insurance company for violation of the livery exclusion. Not only is the claim denied, but because the Uber driver was in gross violation of the livery exclusion, the driver's personal insurance company takes the position that the driver was never insured at the time of the accident.
5) Uber driver contacts James River again as the secondary insurer expecting to be covered.
6) James River claims specialist learns that driver was operating in gross violation of the livery exclusion of his persona policy and the the driver's (former) personal insurer has taken the position that the driver was uninsured at the time of the accident.
7) James River denies the claim on the basis that the driver was not truthful about having insurance since the driver's personal carrier says he was not insured at the time of the accident.
8) Driver is left out to dry by both insurance companies. The driver now must come out of pocket for his medical and property damage. Finally, the driver will likely pay extremely high insurance rates for the next three years now that he has been dropped by a carrier for violation of policy terms.
9) The James River policy will cover the medical claim(s) of passengers. However, passenger(s) can still sue the Uber driver in civil court for negligence and damages.

The bottom line here is that Uber (and James River) have built part of the Uber business model on the fact that the vast majority of drivers will be in violation of their personal insurance policies the minute they carry a rider and receive compensation for it.


----------



## UberTDI (Aug 2, 2015)

Desert Driver said:


> Because when Uber's VP of Risk Management tells you that the James River insurance policy definitely will not cover the driver's injuries and likely will not cover the driver's property damage, you know you're flirting with disaster.


Do you have a publicly accessible quote from the said party stating this? You have brought this up a number of times, but again - the only evidence I have to go on is your word of a conversation vs. what information is made available publicly by Uber, and anecdotal experiences from others who have made claims to James River.

Your whole 1-9 numbered scenario unfortunately ignores the fact that once you get a waybill, the James River policy becomes primary. Your personal insurance is no longer involved in the picture here. If you get in an incident, you show the James River insurance, not your own policy. You are not violating a livery clause in your personal policy because you're not insured by that policy - you're insured by James River. It's not against any law or regulation that I know of to have two different types of insurance on the same vehicle, especially when one policy is not in effect but the other is. According to the *publicly available documentation:*



> $1 million of liability coverage per incident. Uber holds a commercial insurance policy with $1 million of coverage per incident. Drivers' liability to third parties is covered from the moment a driver accepts a trip to its conclusion. *This policy is expressly primary to any personal auto coverage* (However it will not take precedence over any commercial auto insurance for the vehicle). We have provided a $1 million liability policy since commencing ridesharing in early 2013.


The part that covers the driver's vehicle:


> *Contingent comprehensive and collision insurance.* If a ridesharing driver holds personal comprehensive and collision insurance this policy covers physical damage to that vehicle that occurs during a trip up to the actual cash value of the vehicle, for any reason, with a $1,000 deductible


The contingency here is if you hold collision or comprehensive insurance on your own. They're not going to cover you for collision or comprehensive damage while driving for Uber if you don't hold those policies when NOT driving for Uber. Basically, you're not getting better insurance than you have when you're "off the clock."

I will agree that in most states you're probably holding the bag for your own medical costs, which could be significant if you're not otherwise covered by health insurance. If you are, your risk would seem to be limited to meeting your deductible and any co-insurance/co-pay.

Even most insurers recognize the fact that the James River policy is primary - this is why the development of "hybrid policies" is coming of age - http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/06/05/370722.htm

If the risk to the insured was that high, the endorsement would cost more than "$15-20" per year, and by virtue of the endorsement itself, the insurer knows that the driver is working for a TNC. Insurers recognize their largest risk is "App on / waiting for ride" and to aide drivers in paying deductibles (i.e. Allstate pays the difference between the JR deductible and the deductible limits you pay for your policy) on the JR policy.

Would the best of both worlds be to have a commercial policy? Absolutely. Does driving for UberX/UberXL/Uber Select make obtaining a commercial policy feasible? In most cases, no. I am waiting for a quote on one of the hybrid plans myself.


----------



## UberRules? (Jul 10, 2015)

"The bottom line here is that Uber (and James River) have built part of the Uber business model on the fact that the vast majority of drivers will be in violation of their personal insurance policies the minute they carry a rider and receive compensation for it."

Wow, that settle's it, don't drive for Uber or pay an additional 4,500 per year. However, if this is true, isn't Uber engaging in "false advertising" and other unfair trade practices? If so, this is a matter that should be settled by a government agency, don't you would think. Please no legal opinions, just provide some real world advice on whether you think if it is possible, and how it could be pursued?


----------



## Scenicruiser (Oct 17, 2014)

UberRules? said:


> "The bottom line here is that Uber (and James River) have built part of the Uber business model on the fact that the vast majority of drivers will be in violation of their personal insurance policies the minute they carry a rider and receive compensation for it."
> 
> Wow, that settle's it, don't drive for Uber or pay an additional 4,500 per year. However, if this is true, isn't Uber engaging in "false advertising" and other unfair trade practices? If so, this is a matter that should be settled by a government agency, don't you would think. Please no legal opinions, just provide some real world advice on whether you think if it is possible, and how it could be pursued?


Uber is not the transportation company...you are. It is your responsibility as the business owner to have everything in place to operate legally, responsibly and safely. There is no getting around that for us. Uber steps up to the plate when it suits thier PR needs


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

UberTDI said:


> Do you have a publicly accessible quote from the said party stating this? You have brought this up a number of times, but again - the only evidence I have to go on is your word of a conversation vs. what information is made available publicly by Uber, and anecdotal experiences from others who have made claims to James River.
> 
> Your whole 1-9 numbered scenario unfortunately ignores the fact that once you get a waybill, the James River policy becomes primary. Your personal insurance is no longer involved in the picture here. If you get in an incident, you show the James River insurance, not your own policy. You are not violating a livery clause in your personal policy because you're not insured by that policy - you're insured by James River. It's not against any law or regulation that I know of to have two different types of insurance on the same vehicle, especially when one policy is not in effect but the other is. According to the *publicly available documentation:*
> 
> ...


I guess the most prudent thing to do here would be for you to involve yourself in a minor at-fault accident (make sure it's more than $1K in damage) and see how well the James River policy works out for you. But just to be safe, be sure to have a couple grand in cash handy, too. One never knows, does one?

But all kidding aside, anyone who relies on the James River policy for their safety net while driving for Uber is truly on a fool's errand.


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

UberRules? said:


> "The bottom line here is that Uber (and James River) have built part of the Uber business model on the fact that the vast majority of drivers will be in violation of their personal insurance policies the minute they carry a rider and receive compensation for it."
> 
> Wow, that settle's it, don't drive for Uber or pay an additional 4,500 per year. However, if this is true, isn't Uber engaging in "false advertising" and other unfair trade practices? If so, this is a matter that should be settled by a government agency, don't you would think. Please no legal opinions, just provide some real world advice on whether you think if it is possible, and how it could be pursued?


Well, to be entirely fair here, no one ever said Uber operated in any fashion that resembles honest or ethical.


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

Scenicruiser said:


> Uber is not the transportation company...you are. It is your responsibility as the business owner to have everything in place to operate legally, responsibly and safely. There is no getting around that for us. Uber steps up to the plate when it suits thier PR needs


You are 100% correct. And Uber preys on drivers' wide-eyed ignorance.


----------



## UberTDI (Aug 2, 2015)

Desert Driver said:


> I guess the most prudent thing to do here would be for you to involve yourself in a minor at-fault accident (make sure it's more than $1K in damage) and see how well the James River policy works out for you. But just to be safe, be sure to have a couple grand in cash handy, too. One never knows, does one?
> 
> But all kidding aside, anyone who relies on the James River policy for their safety net while driving for Uber is truly on a fool's errand.


Again, I hear a lot of doom and gloom here, but I don't see a lot of substance or anything else to base it on. When I ask for you to back it up, I just get more of the same.

Like I said before, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying there's plenty of hard evidence (that I have pointed to) seriously cast doubt upon your statements.


----------



## UberRules? (Jul 10, 2015)

Scenicruiser said:


> Uber is not the transportation company...you are. It is your responsibility as the business owner to have everything in place to operate legally, responsibly and safely. There is no getting around that for us. Uber steps up to the plate when it suits thier PR needs


Good answer, but aren't we being told on the Uber website (a marketing tool) one thing and another thing in the fine print. Please note that it is "an informational summary of insurance policies for quick reference and does not affirmatively or negatively amend, extend, or alter the coverage afforded by those policies". Also note the asterisks and fine print in the Uber webpage. (http://newsroom.uber.com/2014/02/insurance-for-uberx-with-ridesharing/) And how it creates a Catch-22 for the driver. Legal disclaimers aside, doesn't it at least raise a 'truth in advertising" claim when it directly contradicts the policies and actual actions of the insurer (James River) visa vi the driver's personal policy. It's true, Uber will only change things when it suits in PR needs. So?


----------



## UberTDI (Aug 2, 2015)

UberRules? said:


> Good answer, but aren't we being told on the Uber website (a marketing tool) one thing and another thing in the fine print. Please note that it is "an informational summary of insurance policies for quick reference and does not affirmatively or negatively amend, extend, or alter the coverage afforded by those policies". Also note the asterisks and fine print in the Uber webpage. (http://newsroom.uber.com/2014/02/insurance-for-uberx-with-ridesharing/) And how it creates a Catch-22 for the driver. Legal disclaimers aside, doesn't it at least raise a 'truth in advertising" claim when it directly contradicts the policies and actual actions of the insurer (James River) visa vi the driver's personal policy. It's true, Uber will only change things when it suits in PR needs. So?





> * This replaces our prior collision-only reimbursement program as of March 14, 2014.
> 
> ** Effective as of March 14, 2014 in all U.S. states


These are the only asterisks that are on the page referenced. They seem pretty clear.



> And how it creates a Catch-22 for the driver.


How so?


----------



## mikeuberman123 (Jul 10, 2015)

here's some advice you have a better chance of making more money at McDonalds


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

UberTDI said:


> Again, I hear a lot of doom and gloom here, but I don't see a lot of substance or anything else to base it on. When I ask for you to back it up, I just get more of the same.
> 
> Like I said before, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying there's plenty of hard evidence (that I have pointed to) seriously cast doubt upon your statements.


Well, when the Uber VP of Risk Management tells you straight-up that there are considerable insurance risks, that's a solid cautionary word in my book. Of course, I would never have been so foolish as to drive without a livery policy in the first place.


----------



## Scenicruiser (Oct 17, 2014)

Yeah, but after uber lied the first time, I took it upon myself to figure out what I had to do and started moving in that direction. So if I was a judge at the uber trial...then Yes, you are correct. . But as a driver, uber is a lead generator and payment processor, nothing more. 


UberRules? said:


> Good answer, but aren't we being told on the Uber website (a marketing tool) one thing and another thing in the fine print. Please note that it is "an informational summary of insurance policies for quick reference and does not affirmatively or negatively amend, extend, or alter the coverage afforded by those policies". Also note the asterisks and fine print in the Uber webpage. (http://newsroom.uber.com/2014/02/insurance-for-uberx-with-ridesharing/) And how it creates a Catch-22 for the driver. Legal disclaimers aside, doesn't it at least raise a 'truth in advertising" claim when it directly contradicts the policies and actual actions of the insurer (James River) visa vi the driver's personal policy. It's true, Uber will only change things when it suits in PR needs. So?


----------



## UberTDI (Aug 2, 2015)

Desert Driver said:


> Well, when the Uber VP of Risk Management tells you straight-up that there are considerable insurance risks, that's a solid cautionary word in my book. Of course, I would never have been so foolish as to drive without a livery policy in the first place.


We're going in circles here. You can't provide _anything_ that proves this is the case. Just some "Yeah, I had a conversation with this guy" which completely contradicts what's in black and white and available to the public, anywhere at any time.

I don't know how else to say this without sounding like an ass - but if you have a direct conduit to senior management at Uber:

A. Can you get them to come on this forum, or at least provide a written statement that outlines the "considerable insurance risks."

B. How did you have this conversation with the VP of Risk Management at Uber? Generally people who have conduits to senior management aren't the type of people who make their living driving full time for a TNC.

This completely ignores the fact that these insurance policies have been scrutinized time and time again by insurers as well as by state and local governments.


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

UberTDI said:


> We're going in circles here. You can't provide _anything_ that proves this is the case. Just some "Yeah, I had a conversation with this guy" which completely contradicts what's in black and white and available to the public, anywhere at any time.
> 
> I don't know how else to say this without sounding like an ass - but if you have a direct conduit to senior management at Uber:
> 
> ...


Feel free to call Chris Boedecker like I did. Like you, I had a lot of questions about the insurance gap. And, yes, there IS an insurance gap. And, yes, Chris Boedecker explained it to me in concise terms. I'm not sure how much more I can provide for you, other than Chris' phone number, perhaps.

But, look, the bottom line is that it's a personal decision whether a person drives around insured or uninsured. I am one of the few who did the research and I decided NOT to drive uninsured. That's not to say the the next bloke won't make a different decision than I did. And that's OK because, in the end, it's a personal decision. Yes, the consequences are potentially heavy, but it's still a personal decision that each of us must make. And that's really all there is to this discussion. Sorry if you thought I was talking in circle. I was simply addressing your concerns.

Let me know if I can help you out again.


----------



## vesolehome (Aug 2, 2015)

Nobody could afford to drive for Uber if you shell out $4500 a year in insurance.


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

vesolehome said:


> Nobody could afford to drive for Uber if you shell out $4500 a year in insurance.


Exactly! I was able to add livery coverage to my vehicle for a nominal charge because I already have the vehicle insured commercially for one of my other businesses. Otherwise, there's no way I could or would drive U/L. Because without a commercial livery policy of some sort, all the Uber drivers are on the street uninsured. Count me out of that game. Stakes are way too high.


----------



## Ghostwren (Jul 1, 2015)

Desert Driver said:


> _I post this every month or so for the benefit of our new driver friends and new forum members._
> 
> Uber best practices for safety, high ratings, and profit maximization.
> 
> ...


Thank you for this useful point of reference. Interested to know about the relative safety of the UberX driver compared to a taxi driver, but for lack of evidence. I'm not currently driving for Uber but when I did, I removed my personal valuables such as engagement ring, wore nothing lose around my neck like scarf tie or necklace, did not carry my handbag but I got a new smaller wallet for driving that I could secure on my person. They don't teach you that at induction.


----------



## UberRules? (Jul 10, 2015)

UberTDI said:


> These are the only asterisks that are on the page referenced. They seem pretty clear.
> 
> How so?


In short, see the graph at the top of the webpage (http://newsroom.uber.com/2014/02/insurance-for-uberx-with-ridesharing/), there are asterisks and notes. The catch- 22 is the in the nine steps to "how the claim-rejection sequence typically plays out" scenario described by [URL='https://uberpeople.net/members/desert-driver.4558/']Desert Driver, Yesterday at 3:29 PM. I asked my insurance agent (State Farm), and he said my policy will not cover me when I am on-line heading to pick-up a passenger. Its implied that James River will not cover me, because I am not covered by my personal insurance. Now this is the issue that really concerns me. Will James River and their policy holder Uber cover us during these, non-rider periods on line, or is it a shell game.


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

UberRules? said:


> In short, see the graph at the top of the webpage (http://newsroom.uber.com/2014/02/insurance-for-uberx-with-ridesharing/), there are asterisks and notes. The catch- 22 is the in the nine steps to "how the claim-rejection sequence typically plays out" scenario described by Desert Driver, Yesterday at 3:29 PM. I asked my insurance agent (State Farm), and he said my policy will not cover me when I am on-line heading to pick-up a passenger. Its implied that James River will not cover me, because I am not covered by my personal insurance. Now this is the issue that really concerns me. Will James River and their policy holder Uber cover us during these, non-rider periods on line, or is it a shell game.


The latter. Simply put, drivers who haul paxs for Uber or Lyft without first procuring a commercial livery insurance policy are truly playing a version of Russian Roulette. If more people understood the risk, fewer people would be so quick to sign and drive.


----------



## UberRules? (Jul 10, 2015)

Desert Driver said:


> Feel free to call Chris Boedecker like I did. Like you, I had a lot of questions about the insurance gap. And, yes, there IS an insurance gap. And, yes, Chris Boedecker explained it to me in concise terms. I'm not sure how much more I can provide for you, other than Chris' phone number, perhaps.
> 
> But, look, the bottom line is that it's a personal decision whether a person drives around insured or uninsured. I am one of the few who did the research and I decided NOT to drive uninsured. That's not to say the the next bloke won't make a different decision than I did. And that's OK because, in the end, it's a personal decision. Yes, the consequences are potentially heavy, but it's still a personal decision that each of us must make. And that's really all there is to this discussion. Sorry if you thought I was talking in circle. I was simply addressing your concerns.
> 
> Let me know if I can help you out again.


Yes, please give me Mr. Boedecker's phone number. Oh by the way, I am new (and kinda ignorant of all things Uber), so could someone tell me what TNC stands for. Technically Not a Carrier?


----------



## UberTDI (Aug 2, 2015)

During the non-rider period - park your car. Drop off your PAX and go offline. Drive somewhere and park, vehicle off. Don't go online until you are not moving / not in your car. Go into a Dunkin Donuts or a Starbucks and enjoy some free Wi-Fi until you ACCEPT A RIDE.

At this point, you're covered under the James River policy as outlined here:
http://newsroom.uber.com/2014/02/insurance-for-uberx-with-ridesharing/


----------



## UberTDI (Aug 2, 2015)

UberRules? said:


> Yes, please give me Mr. Boedecker's phone number. Oh by the way, I am new (and kinda ignorant of all things Uber), so could someone tell me what TNC stands for. Technically Not a Carrier?


Don't hold your breath for that number. He can't even spell the guy's name correctly nor has his correct title. Here's the LinkedIn profile of Mr. Chirs _Boedeker - _https://www.linkedin.com/in/christopherboedeker

He's nowhere near a "VP" / C-Level position at Uber.

TNC - Transportation Network Company


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

UberTDI said:


> Don't hold your breath for that number. He can't even spell the guy's name correctly nor has his correct title. Here's the LinkedIn profile of Mr. Chirs _Boedeker - _https://www.linkedin.com/in/christopherboedeker
> 
> He's nowhere near a "VP" / C-Level position at Uber.
> 
> TNC - Transportation Network Company


Yeah, he's either Director of Risk Mgmt or VP Risk Mgmt. It's been eight months since I chatted with the bloke so I don't call the minutiae. But you can yammer with him yourself. He's a charming chap to speak with. You can ring him up at 415-801-4068.

No need to thank me.

Please don't hesitate to let me know when I can correct you or provide you with accurate information. That's why I'm here, after all.


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

UberRules? said:


> Yes, please give me Mr. Boedecker's phone number. Oh by the way, I am new (and kinda ignorant of all things Uber), so could someone tell me what TNC stands for. Technically Not a Carrier?


TNC = Transportation Network Company.

You can contact Mr. Boedeker at 
(415) 801-4068


----------



## UberRules? (Jul 10, 2015)

Thanks, I will let you know if got a hold of him and what he has to say.


----------



## Desert Driver (Nov 9, 2014)

UberRules? said:


> Thanks, I will let you know if got a hold of him and what he has to say.


Please do!


----------



## Mojo Man (Jul 13, 2015)

UberTDI said:


> Do you have a publicly accessible quote from the said party stating this? You have brought this up a number of times, but again - the only evidence I have to go on is your word of a conversation vs. what information is made available publicly by Uber, and anecdotal experiences from others who have made claims to James River.
> 
> Your whole 1-9 numbered scenario unfortunately ignores the fact that once you get a waybill, the James River policy becomes primary. Your personal insurance is no longer involved in the picture here. If you get in an incident, you show the James River insurance, not your own policy. You are not violating a livery clause in your personal policy because you're not insured by that policy - you're insured by James River. It's not against any law or regulation that I know of to have two different types of insurance on the same vehicle, especially when one policy is not in effect but the other is. According to the *publicly available documentation:*
> 
> ...


Sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen


----------

