Get in touch
SOUTH JERSEY
PHILADELPHIA
FLORIDA

Rideshare Liability – Who Pays?

The Lento Law Group, P.C. • Feb 10, 2021

Snow is falling and Punxsutawney Phil is already predicting six more weeks of Winter. Understandably then, people may be hesitant to take to the roads for fear of accident-causing patches of black ice. If you don’t feel confident to drive in icy conditions, you may – like millions of Americans – turn to a rideshare app like Uber or Lyft to get around.


Rideshare services have become a booming business. In fact, in 2019, an estimated 6.9 billion (yes, billion with a “b”) customer trips were completed by Uber alone, according to statistics compiled by app analytics reporter
Business of Apps. While ridesharing services like Uber and Lyft have grown in popularity across the country and across the world in recent years, it’s no surprise that so too has grown the number of lawsuits arising from motor vehicle accidents occurring during a rideshare situation. 


This rise in rideshare accidents and the resulting influx of potential plaintiffs stemming therefrom has brought to the attention of the legal community a similar influx of questions from potential rideshare plaintiffs regarding liability when a rideshare accident occurs. Just who pays?


Put simply, rideshare accidents can be complicated and highly fact-specific, in that, depending on the precise factual circumstances in a given rideshare accident, liability can change dramatically. Additionally, ridesharing drivers – typically independent contractors – are not generally considered employees of the company for whom they are driving. Thus, companies like Uber and Lyft do not necessarily have legal responsibility for their drivers and are not necessarily liable for accidents caused by such drivers. However, in light of ongoing litigation in various states, specifically in California, a rideshare driver’s status as an independent contractor versus an employee is a legal issue still in flux in many places.


Even so, most major ridesharing companies nonetheless perform driver safety education, driver background checks, and motor vehicle checks for both the safety of the consumer and as due diligence to mitigate potential liability. 


Importantly, insofar as liability of the rideshare company is concerned, similar to the commercial carrier insurance required for most taxi services, both Uber and Lyft carry liability insurance coverage of up to $1 million, but generally the policy has some limitations as to when it applies and to whom it covers.


Specifically, on its website, Uber outlines three different factual scenarios effecting coverage:


OFFLINE
When an Uber driver has the app turned off and is driving their car for personal use.

Obviously, in this circumstance, there is no passenger, so this situation speaks only to the insurance coverage of the driver. Since the Uber driver is not driving for Uber at this time, and is instead driving for themselves, they are not covered by the insurance Uber maintains for their partnered drivers. Therefore, as in any traditional auto accident, accidents involving your vehicle which occur while not utilizing the Uber platform are covered by your personal auto insurance coverage.


APP ON
Uber driver has the app enabled and is waiting for a rideshare request

While an Uber driver is online with the applicable and is awaiting a rideshare request to accept, but before such a request is actually accepted, they are covered for their liability to third parties if they are in an accident and at-fault. Coverage includes liability to pay another person’s medical bills or to pay for property damage (like damage to the other vehicle).


Coverage Limits in these situations vary by state, but are at least: 



  • $50,000 per person/$100,000 per accident for bodily injury 
  • $25,000 per accident for property damage 


If you were struck by a rideshare driver, you may be able to make a claim against Uber’s third-party liability insurance, in addition to your personal insurance policy covering your medical expenses through your plan’s Personal Injury Protection (PIP) provision.


RIDESHARE REQUEST ACCEPTED AND ON TRIP
- On your way to pick up a rider and during a trip

After an Uber driver has accepted a rideshare request, Uber maintains coverage for three things:

 

  1. Third-Party Liability Coverage of at least $1,000,000 per accident. 
  2. Uninsured or Underinsured Motorist (UM/UIM) Bodily Injury Coverage for the Uber driver and any passengers in the vehicle. This also covers hit and run accidents where the at-fault driver cannot be identified. Coverage limits vary by state, but are at least $1,000,000 per accident. 
  3. Contingent Collision and Comprehensive Coverage up to the actual cash value of your vehicle as the Uber driver. There is a $1,000 deductible. 


Lyft follows a similar three-tier insurance coverage plan for their drivers as well. 


While this information is clearly useful for the driver, but what of the passenger or third-parties? Given this information, if you are riding in a rideshare vehicle
en route during your booked trip, or if you are a third-party who was hit by a ridesharing vehicle that was actively in service at that time – in other words, that the rideshare app was enabled and the driver was awaiting a rideshare request or actively on a trip – you should be covered by the company’s policy. 


If, however, you are hurt in a collision with a rideshare vehicle, but one that is not actively logged into the application – essentially, “off the clock” – that driver’s personal insurance company should be responsible, but be warned: it is not uncommon for personal auto insurers of vehicles used for rideshare to initially deny claims until such time as they are made aware that the rideshare driver was not driving in their rideshare capacity. Again, this is why these types of cases are very fact specific.


An additional complication can arise if the rideshare company itself declines to cover a third-party claim caused by an active rideshare driver, citing their status as an independent contractor. They may attempt to push off the claim to the rideshare driver’s personal auto carrier. However, many personal auto carriers have policies which exclude coverage if the driver was acting for profit at the time of the accident. 


As you can see, then, sorting out liability and which insurance company or individual is responsible for covering your claims can be a very tedious task. Therefore, if you ever find yourself in such a situation, and are the victim of a rideshare accident, having been injured as a passenger in a rideshare vehicle that was involved in an accident, or as a third-party who was hit by a vehicle being actively used for rideshare purposes, it is strongly recommended that you contact the Lento Law Group today. Our team of experienced and dedicated attorneys will fight to ensure you receive the financial compensation you deserve!

More News & Resources

By Joseph D. Lento 03 May, 2024
Nurses facing abuse or other misconduct charges over inappropriate patient restraint need skilled defense representation.
By Lawrence A. Katz 26 Apr, 2024
The news has recently had almost daily stories about the social media app, Tik Tok, and Congress’ threat to make using it illegal unless its ownership is transferred from its present Chinese owners. The argument for requiring the removal of Chinses owners is that they require access to personal and confidential information and that poses a national security risk. I have seen tech experts who question whether transferring ownership will actually eliminate that threat. They suggest that if the computer code for the Tik Top app already contains a “backdoor” enabling the secret access to information, changing ownership will not correct the problem. This blog is not intended to discuss those issues. Instead, we will address the claims by many that preventing people from using Tik Tok is a First Amendment free speech violation. I suggest that it is not. This is a tidbit to keep for your next Trivia Night. The First Amendment was originally only intended to prohibit the federal government from interfering with free speech. It was not until 1925, in Gitlow v. New York, that the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibited all levels of government (states and local governments) from interfering with free speech. A government can limit speech if doing so is content neutral. As the United States Supreme Court has explained, “A regulation of speech is facially content based under the First Amendment if it ‘target[s] speech based on its communicative content’—that is, if it ‘applies to particular speech because of the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed.’” City of Austin v. Reagan Nat'l Advert. of Austin, LLC, 596 U.S. 61 (2022). Thus, where a transit system prohibited all advertisements on its premises, the Court held that the limit was constitutional because it applied to all subjects and opinions. In contrast, a limitation on a single message is not permitted. In Ctr. for Investigative Reporting v. SEPTA, 975 F.3d 300, 303 (3d Cir. 2020), a Court of Appeals ruled against a public transit agency’s refusal to accept advertisements that were political or discussed matters of public debate. The regulation was not content neutral. The prohibition against Tik Tok would likely be found constitutional because the prohibition is not based on a specific subject or viewpoint. There is one other issue that must be raised --- it is highly unlikely that a government could prohibit all means of public forums for speech. Even if content neutral, it is unlikely that a government could prohibit all social media any more than it could prohibit all newspapers. However, in the case of Tik Tok, prohibiting it from operating in the United States does not effectively prohibit all means of public forums as several other social media platforms still exist. Thus, the often-voiced opinion that eliminating Tik Tok denies its users their First Amendment rights is inaccurate.
By Joseph Cannizzo Jr 26 Apr, 2024
While dogs are often referred to as “man’s best friend,” dogs can also be dangerous, and even the friendliest of dogs may bite when provoked. This this blog post we will discuss some general legal theory about animal bites, including dog bites, and outline what you should do if you were bit by another person’s dog or other animal. Can I Sue for a Dog Bite? Before I answer this question, it is important to understand the legal theory that undergirds animal bite cases. The law classically categorized animals into two categories: domitae naturae – meaning, those animals that are classically domesticated or tamed – and ferae naturae – meaning, those animals that are classically feral, wild, or exotic. This distinction is significant legally because, generally speaking, those who possess a ferae naturae animal – for example, a tiger – do so at their own peril. This is because if ferae naturae animal bites another person, the owner of the animal is generally presumed to be at-fault. While the owner of a domitae naturae animal can also be held liable for the actions of that animal, generally, a bite by such an animal – for example, a cat or a dog – may not necessarily give rise to a presumption of fault. At least, that was the classical framework. This has been changed by individual laws in many states. Most states have adopted a strict-liability standard in connection with dog bites. This means that a biting dog’s owner will be held liable for injuries caused by the dog, even if the owner used reasonable care to restrain the dog or to protect or warn the other party. Often, this strict-liability view can be viewed as harsh, if one adheres to the “accidents happen” mentality. In recognition of the potentially harsh outcomes strict-liability may bring about, a handful of other states have adopted a “One-Bite Rule”. In essence, a One-Bite Rule is a law that provides that a dog owner may only be held liable if they knew or should have known that the dog has a vicious propensity or is prone to bite, and that owner would only have such knowledge if the dog has bitten someone in the past. In other words, the One-Bite Rule is called this because the owner of a dog with a propensity to bite essentially gets their first bite free because the owner will likely not be found liable for the first bite. This is consistent with the notion of the “foreseeability of the harm” that undergirds much of tort law – in other words, how could the owner foresee that his or her dog would bite if it has never done so before? Conversely, the owner should know, and should therefore be held liable, if the dog has bitten someone before. So, to answer the question of whether you can sue if you have been bitten by a dog, the answer, generally is yes, but the merits of you claim will depend largely on whether you live in a strict-liability state or a One-Bite Rule state. What Do I Do If I Have Been Bitten? While you may, of course, be panicked immediately following a dog bite, it is important to do the following: · Call 911 to report the incident. Make sure a police report is filed, and get a copy of it. · Get the dog owner’s name and contact information, if possible. · Try to get a picture of the dog and the owner, if possible. · Take pictures of the bite wounds while they are still fresh. · Go seek medical treatment, if necessary, and try to leave the appointment with a copy of your medical record in connection with the visit. · Contact a knowledgeable personal injury lawyer as soon as possible. If you or a loved one have been injured by a public actor or public entity, call the Lento Law Group today. Our team of knowledgeable and compassionate attorneys and support staff can help guide you while you work to pick up the pieces after a traumatic accident. Call Lento Law Group today at (856) 652-2000. We will fight to get you the recovery you deserve.
By Joseph Cannizzo Jr. 26 Apr, 2024
By Joseph Cannizzo Jr. July 2023
By Jeanilou G.T. Maschhoff 26 Apr, 2024
By Jeanilou G.T. Maschhoff, Esquire • 20 April, 2024
By Jeanilou G.T. Maschhoff 26 Apr, 2024
By Jeanilou G.T. Maschhoff, Esquire • 06 April, 2024
08 Mar, 2024
By Jeanilou G.T. Maschhoff, Esquire • 06 March, 2024
08 Mar, 2024
By Lawrence A. Katz, Esquire • 07 Feb, 2024
08 Mar, 2024
Professional discipline in one state can affect a professional license in another state. Don’t run. Get help up front.
01 Mar, 2024
ERIC HAKEEM DEONTAYE MAYS, late Councilman Eric Mays's son and only next of kin, along with Bishop Patrick Munnerlyn, Community Outreach Specialist for the Lento Law Group, cordially invites the Flint community to a candlelight vigil to honor the remarkable life and legacy of Councilman Eric B. Mays. The vigil will take place on Saturday, March 2, at 6:00 PM in front of Flint City Hall, as we come together to celebrate a true hero of Flint, a relentless champion for the community, a visionary leader, a devoted public servant, and a cherished friend. Councilman Mays was a beacon of hope and strength for Flint, advocating tirelessly for the rights and well-being of its residents. His unwavering dedication to serving the community has left an indelible mark on the hearts of all who had the privilege of knowing him. As we gather to remember his remarkable contributions, let us light candles in unity to illuminate the path he paved toward a brighter future for Flint. This vigil is an opportunity for us to reflect on the profound impact of Councilman Mays’ work, to share stories of his courage and kindness, and to reaffirm our commitment to the values he embodied. Participants are welcome to bring their own candles, but candles will also be provided (as long as supplies last) to ensure that everyone can join in this act of remembrance and solidarity. Councilman Mays’ love for the people of Flint was boundless, and in return, he was deeply loved and respected by the community he served. As we mourn his passing, we also celebrate the legacy of a man who dedicated his life to making Flint a better place for all its residents. It has indeed been a sad week in Flint, but let us come together to honor a man who gave so much of himself to our city. Join us in front of Flint City Hall to pay tribute to Councilman Eric B. Mays, a man who deserves the best: our collective love, respect, and admiration. We invite everyone to come and show their support by standing in solidarity as we remember a great man who has left an everlasting mark on our community. Atlanta, GA • Birmingham, AL • Boulder, CO • Coral Springs, FL • Detroit, MI • El Paso, TX • Flint, MI • Honolulu, HI • Los Angeles, CA • Maui, HI Miami, FL • Mount Laurel, NJ • Newark, NJ • New York, NY • Orlando, FL • Philadelphia, PA • Puerta Plata, DR •Richmond, VA • Salt Lake City, UT San Juan, PR • Scottsdale, AZ • Washington, DC 
More Posts
Share by: