Although transportation network companies (TNCs) such as Uber and Lyft have recently been restricted from operating in cities until they have secured proper insurance coverage (among other requirements), the coverage these TNC insurance products provide is not as comprehensive as some may think.
Uber and Lyft each both carry $1 million in liability insurance that covers their drivers as they are en route to pick up a passenger or while carrying one. The policy may appear adequate enough to cover for any accidents or mishaps the TNCs’ drivers and their passengers may encounter, but TNCs can be very imprecise as to who should be held liable when something happens on the road.
A feature article on
ourwindsor.ca found that the fine print on Uber’s terms says that passengers hail a ride through the TNC service at their own risk. The terms also highlight that the company is not legally liable for the safety of its drivers, or the quality of its services.
"[The company] does not guarantee the quality, suitability, safety or ability of third-party providers (drivers)," Uber’s terms say. "[Riders must agree that the] entire risk arising out of your use of the services, and any service or good requested in connection therewith, remains solely with you," another part of the terms reads.
TNCs like Uber insist that their drivers are “independent contractors”—this way, TNCs do not have to claim liability for any trouble caused by their drivers as they are not employees and instead shift liability to the users/passengers.
If one of Uber’s drivers gets lost and subsequently makes his or her passenger late for an appointment, for instance, the company maintains that it is not involved with the mishap. Uber also asserts the same thing should one of the drivers associated with it assaults a passenger, among other misbehaviours.
This part of Uber’s terms contradicts its liability insurance policy, which it has secured for the benefit of its drivers.
Notably, Uber’s liability waivers are being tested in court.
Last fall, two women in Massachusetts and South Carolina claimed in separate cases that they have been sexually assaulted by Uber drivers. The company sought to dismiss the case claiming that the plaintiffs could not prove that the drivers were its employees, but a San Francisco federal judge said that there is sufficient argument that the drivers were Uber’s and that the company’s supposed background check should have revealed a previous assault charge against one of them.
Related Stories:
French court slaps Uber with fine over insurance, licensing
Quebec forces Uber legislation through, though insurance still unclear
