Quote:
Originally Posted by kunkstyle
Highlighted a few key points.
A quick search brings up a lot of results of Uber not paying out for their insurance policy, or paying out in the range of 50-100k.
And no the guy risking everything isn't just the driver.
A number of years back, a close co-worker's son got hit by a car. He was paralyzed and brain damaged as a result. The driver that hit him had a suspended license, and was not insured. So to add to the (obviously larger) issue of their son being paralyzed, they had nothing to cover medical costs, or costs to retro-fit the house to make it accessible, or to cover the fact that one of the parents would have to stay home and not be able to work now. It took about 7 years of suing pretty much everyone within 6-degrees of separation of the incident to get anything to cover these costs.
So if one's insurance is void, and Uber finds a loop-hole to not pay out it's policy, it's not just the driver that's going to be screwed. Because yeah you might be able to successfully sue the insurance company, or Uber, or the driver, but suing one of those is likely attempting to get blood from a stone, the other likely to take a decade.
Maybe I'm way off base, but I just don't see this 5-mil Uber insurance policy to cover what it's advertising when it comes down to the fine print. Unless something's changed from what I've read, you're covered by a fraction when en-route to a pickup, and your personal insurance still won't work, because that's still commercial use.
My other question, is if the insurance companies start denying claims for Uber drivers even in non Uber-related accidents. Complete speculation, but I can see them taking the list of Uber drivers and denying claims based on failure to disclose information. Even when not driving for Uber at the time of the accident.
No, but not disclosing the fact you're using your vehicle for commercial use voids the contract.
|
I hate to say it, because we're getting off topic here, but that situation might well exist with insurance coverage. The issue becomes more cloudy with a liability issue involved (if there is one) and things like medical costs, home renos, people missing work are left largely until the claim is settled which can be a number of years.
I do agree that the Uber policy is questionable, and I haven't done any major research into its effectiveness or anything like that. I just get the impression that the City (which has known for a number of years that Uber wanted to operate here), has done nothing, and this is a convenient explanation. That doesn't mean there are no concerns, but to me the city should be in a position to say "here's the bylaw we have regarding these services, and oh, btw, there are many concerns regarding the insurance and as a result the legality of these services."
Really though, I take taxis only on rare occasions, so I guess I have no strong feeling on the topic.