Insurance industry officials warn that Uber drivers don't [always] have the proper accident coverage and are putting themselves and the public at risk when they get behind the wheel. That stark message, and a call for the city to regulate Uber drivers, came during what a pair of insurance officials and Councillor Jim Karygiannis called a "technical briefing" at Toronto City Hall Thursday.
They said many drivers for the controversial ride-sharing service are hiding their activity from insurers. By law, drivers must declare to their insurance company if they're driving passengers for hire so the insurer can provide the proper policy and accident coverage.
[...]
But Philomena Comerford, CEO of Baird MacGregor Insurance Brokers, said in many cases this isn't happening with Uber drivers. That means Ontario's motorists could be hit with higher premiums because of "significant and unexpected" injury claims.
"This problem comes at time when the insurance industry is working hard with the Ontario government to reduce personal consumer automobile insurance rates which do not contemplate this commercial activity," she said.
MacGregor said Uber's $5-million supplementary policy covers the company, but not the drivers themselves.
Related Stories
Having looked in the last few days at the problems of insurance and Uber drivers, the City of Toronto will file the paperwork to take another legal crack atshutting down Uber, but it hasn't decided whether it will actually follow through. The previous attempt failed. Lawyer Matthew Cornett confirmed Friday the city will serve a notice of appeal Tuesday to challenge Judge Sean Dunphy's Superior Court ruling.
"This will preserve our right to appeal (within the 30 day-limit)," Cornett said.
Last month, Dunphy denied the city's application for an injunction against the ridesharing company, ruling Uber isn't operating a taxi cab or limousine service. A lawyer for the city had argued Uber should fall under the same licensing requirements that govern taxi brokerages because "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then you should call it a duck." Dunphy disagreed.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2015, @09:19PM
Shouldn't it be the opposite? They won't pay on these claims so if anything they should be saving money. What am I missing here?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2015, @09:33PM
What am I missing here?
An understanding of how insurance works? Don't feel bad, there is a lot of this going around, especially in the US with health insurance.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday July 31 2015, @09:47PM
Exactly. Like in the U.S. with health insurance, rates are higher and coverage is lower than it be because it has to subsidize illegal aliens and other losers without health insurance, who must receive emergency care at the cost of everybody else whenever they're shot or stabbed during meth sales gone bad or their attempted home invasions with intent to commit rape of innocent White women.
Since the scum are overwhelmingly criminally-minded, they often end up being treated repeatedly and with no intention of paying for any of that care. Hospitals must then write that off as bad debt expense and experience crushing strains on their resources. Of course, the healthcare system is not the only system being strained by illegal immigration -- the public education system is also good example of what happens when people who breed recklessly and with no loyalty to and intention of assimilation of their host nation engage in Welfare Tourism, taking all they can rather ungratefully while returning nothing.
The only difference between illegals and Uber drivers is that Uber drivers are vetted somewhat for safety and required to carry at least a minimum of insurance. Illegals do not because they know that they have an entire system to exploit at their whims, and at no cost to them in the process.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday July 31 2015, @11:07PM
Yes, but surely nobody's subsidizing collision centers when an uninsured driver gets in a wreck and smashes up their car in a way that doesn't total it!
Surely—if I will for a moment take on your views of illegal aliens—, drivers with non-commercial insurance and operator licenses are no more or less safe than drivers with merely a chauffeur license and commercial insurance! (CDL-B or especially CDL-A drivers being safer, I might believe that. Does anybody have research? If my gut is wrong and drivers with chauffeur licenses are safer than drivers with operator licenses, Ethanol here may be on to something!)
Ok, ok, I get it. You're trolling about illegals and found a way to make it on-topic! In that case, well done. (Also bonus for reverse car analogy.)
(Score: 3, Informative) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday July 31 2015, @11:28PM
To expand on one of my points - Services like Uber have hiring and employment standards as many professional driving services do, so it seems logical that there is some degree of safety greater than catching a ride from some random joe schmuck with a car. In Uber's example, to be employed drivers must:
- Be at least 21 years old
- Have access to a 4-door car that is year 2005 or newer in most cities (but not all, one can have a year 2000 or newer car to drive in Los Angeles, Orange County, San Francisco; 2011 or newer to drive in New York; or 2001 or newer to drive in Chicago)
- Must have in-state auto insurance with the driver's name on the policy
- Must have an in-state driver license, licensed for at least one year
- Must have In-state plates with current registration (commercial plates are acceptable as well)
- And most importantly, drivers must pass a background check and a driving record check
My personal experience with using both Uber and Lyft is that drivers are mid '20s or older, extremely safe and careful drivers who keep small talk to a minimum, with very new and good-smelling vehicles which are well-above minimum standards of roadworthiness. Aditionally, and this is most important to me, both services get a driver to me within 15 minutes wherever I am in San Diego. Taxis take hours, if they show up at all, and here in San Diego there are way few taxis considering the demand for them here. Once I even walked up to an on-duty taxi in a parking lot to discuss a ride home, but it took some convincing on my part because he and his other Somali buddies were having too much fun bullshitting and shooting dice to be bothered by annoying customers.
Seeing all the hate for these services really bums me the fuck out, because they are some of the greatest godsends to have resulted from modern technology, and already the fearmongering bullshit machine is going after them. And why the fuck does anybody give a shit about what the Taxi lobby thinks? It's not like they're anywhere near Godman-Sachs or Lockheed-Martin.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Saturday August 01 2015, @12:24AM
Not so fast. That is a blind assumption:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/speed-factor-bob-simon-livery-cab-crash-cops-article-1.2112327 [nydailynews.com]
Im sure this is an isolated incident, right? It's not. Search for "new york fatal taxi accident" and "dangerous taxi driver new york"
There are many reckless drivers in cabs of all types including yellow medallion, green borough and the private car (livery or limo) service drivers. I witnessed a livery driver snorting his own spit, a sure sign of a coke user. I even knew who he was because he lived in my neighborhood and his brother was sent to jail for peddling coke in local dive bars. Friends of mine were in a yellow cab when the driver lit and then dropped his cigarette and jammed on the brakes to retrieve it in the middle of traffic. They then noticed he smelled of alcohol and was intoxicated. They demanded he pull over and let them out, he refused and they called 911 from the back seat of the cab. The cabbie pulled over, they got out and he sped off into traffic. They noted the taxi number and reported him to police. Who knows what happened to him.
Point is you can't trust anyone. No matter what a business tells you in order to appear legit, they are likely lying or their employees are lying. Shit I've worked for places that claimed they drug tested their employees and ran background checks when they had in their employ: a guy locked up for armed robbery, pot heads and another dude who was busted in a sting buying crack from a dealer in a school parking lot. All those claims are bullshit.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Saturday August 01 2015, @01:55AM
And why the fuck does anybody give a shit about what the Taxi lobby thinks? It's not like they're anywhere near Godman-Sachs or Lockheed-Martin.
You're thinking of the wrong level of government. G-S and L-M are very influential at the Federal level, yes, and yes, the taxi lobby probably has no power there at all. However local levels are entirely different. It's just like the auto dealers having a cow about Tesla selling direct to the public. The auto dealers have no power at the Federal level, but they're very powerful and well-connected in their localities and states, so that's where all the anti-Tesla legislation is happening.
And I have to agree entirely about Uber; I've used them (and Lyft) in northern NJ, and they're so much better than the local taxi companies there it isn't funny. Instead of some shitty old smelly car and a $20 fare to go to the next town (maybe about 5 miles), it's $8 to ride in a fairly new Mercedes with a driver who speaks perfect English and is a very careful driver. (Maybe the fact that they're driving their own personal $30k+ vehicle has something to do with their driving style.) And I only had to wait 5 minutes to get a ride, instead of 60 minutes.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Saturday August 01 2015, @02:23AM
I'd agree with most of your points except one. You mentioned you once had an issue getting a taxi to take you somewhere. I reckon that's about 1 in 3 times for me, regardless of the country.
By comparison I haven't had a single problem with the 30 plus uber trips I've taken in the last 3 weeks, and in the last 100+ this year I've had one trip where the car sounded like the exhaust had come loose, the rest have been perfect.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2015, @09:47PM
In the U.S. we have free insurance for all for life, thank you Obama
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2015, @11:01PM
Sure -- if being forced to subsidize care for the criminal and unhealthy while providing a handout for big healthcare, if not being forcibly extorted a "penalty," is what you call "free."
(Score: 2, Insightful) by nobodyknowsimageek on Friday July 31 2015, @10:37PM
You are neglecting to take into consideration that most drivers have "uninsured motorist" on their insurance. If if the Uber driver has an accident with another insured driver, and the Uber driver's insurance will not pay, then that other driver's insurance may have to cover the loss. Thus costs go up and specifically the cost of uninsured motorist goes up; most companies will REQUIRE that you have this coverage, it is not an option.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 01 2015, @03:23PM
At least here, the "underinsured motorist" coverage only covers medical claims for the people in the vehicle, and not the damage they caused. I have health insurance, I don't care if my passengers do, so I would drop this coverage.
(Score: 4, Informative) by vux984 on Friday July 31 2015, @11:49PM
So because insurance isn't covering these drivers (aka they won't be paying out on claims), premiums will go *up*?
Yes.
What am I missing here?
The fact that insurance companies still pay.
The way car insurance works in principle is that you hit me, I make a claim against my insurance; and then my insurance company sues your insurance company. (In practice things are streamlined, actual lawsuits aren't necessary, and in many cases the insurance company is the same for both involved parties... but in principle that's still how it works.)
Now if you aren't properly insured, then what happens? The first half is the same. But then your insurance company decides you weren't properly insured it claim. My insurance company doesn't get any money from them. And I am screwed right... well turns out no.
Fortunately for me, I, like all motorists, have underinsured motorist protection. So that now kicks in. And the insurance company pays out damages against that, and is now out of pocket.
In principle the insurance company can recover the cost of the uninsured motorist claim (and thereby keep premiums down) by directly suing the uninsured motorist for the amount.
However the cost of the lawsuit is non-trivial, and all it usually accomplishes is to bankrupt the improperly insured motorist; so the insurance company only gets pennies on the dollar. It'll still do it because pennies on the dollar is better than nothing, but the difference still has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is increased premiums for everyone to pay for the extra claims against the uninsured motorist protection coverage.
(Score: 2) by aclarke on Monday August 03 2015, @11:21AM
This may be how insurance works where you live, but it's not how insurance works in Ontario. All automobile insurance in Ontario no-fault. This means if you're in an accident, your insurance pays to fix your vehicle, and the other party's insurance pays for their vehicle.
With no-fault insurance, if I'm hit by an uninsured driver, I'm still covered, because my insurance is going to pay for my vehicle regardless.
(Score: 2) by lentilla on Friday July 31 2015, @09:50PM
The easy solution to this "problem" is to "contemplate" this kind of commercial activity. Don't stand around in the boardroom, wringing our hands and saying "woe betide us, some motorists might have the incorrect policy!". Instead, make a new insurance product designed with "occasional commercial activity" in mind, charge a little more for the policy, and everyone is happy (except the taxi cartel).
The lack of imagination in business astounds me. It should not matter to the insurance industry where it gets its money from - it has to be the most amoral of businesses (as in, it doesn't care one way or the other, it's simply a numbers game). Why not provide a product that your customers need? Your business gets more money, your customers get a better product, and society benefits because people are insured. Win, win, win... and all it takes is a "can do" attitude and a smidgeon of imagination.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Friday July 31 2015, @10:18PM
They have that sort of policy, but it costs more than insurance for private drivers and Uber drivers aren't fessing up their commercial activity in order to get the cheaper private rate. That's really the point of the issue.
There are all kinds of policies. If you have a car you barely drive, you can get a special low rate policy. I used to have a car I only used to tow small boat and utility trailer. I got a policy with high coverage, but very low cost, because I promised not to drive that car more than 6000 miles per year (I think I usually drove it less than 500, but 6000 was the lower limit). On the other hand, if someone is driving their car 40+ hours per week, they really are at a greater risk of accident just from being on the road so much compared to someone who drives a few hours per week.
Finally, it sounds like they are contemplating exactly what you propose -- assuming some level of commercial activity -- which is why they are talking about a rise in everyone's premiums. Commercial activity is more dangerous than personal activity which is more dangerous than rarely every driving the car and there are different rates for all that. If I got hit by this kind of rate increase, I'd be pissed, not just because of the increased costs unfairly pawned off on me, but because it would be yet another fucking example of privatizing profit and socializing risk for massive multinational corporate interests. Uber should take care of its employees and not shift that burden to people have no contact with the company whatsoever. Even more ugly, if an uber driver commits fraud to get the personal cheaper rate, and the insurance company finds out, that driver might simply be uninsured leaving whoever they injure to pick up their own tab for death or injury. Why should Uber be so special as to escape liability for its agents' negligence? In what logical economic system is that deemed reasonable?
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday July 31 2015, @11:00PM
The nice thing about Uber is the easy traceability of the service. If someone gets into an accident and they have a reason to believe the other party was involved in the Uber service, Uber should be willing to answer the question, as a safety net to their customers (or, you know, they could actually require proof of insurance to enable a driver).
If Uber rats on you, and your insurance denies coverage, you're a lot less likely to cheat.
Obviously, Uber and the insurance should talk to make sure the rate hike is proportional to your actual Uber activity... That doesn't sound far-fetched for the 21st century.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 01 2015, @12:23AM
Simpler than that is to make Uber financially responsible for accidents / injuries that occur due to the actions of their drivers. Uber can either post a bond and self-insure or pay traditional insurance companies to cover this risk. I imagine, if Uber drivers are declared to be employees, that this will happen anyway.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by GungnirSniper on Friday July 31 2015, @10:18PM
Everyone wants a cut of the disruptive new technologies, earned or not.
Imagine if ice harvesters [forgottennewengland.com] demanded a cut of every refrigerator sale, because it cuts into their business?
Imagine if milkmen demanded a percentage of every gallon sold in a supermarket?
Imagine if buggy whip makers demanded a payment for every gas and brake pedal made?
Imagine if club makers demanded a slice of every sword produced?
We are seeing the same today with taxi medallion owners, most whom have seen a fall in their resale value and rental rates, panicking because their precious state monopoly is no longer worth as much as it was. Instead of embracing change, or trying to convince customers of their added value (security?) they are again pleading with the state to protect their unfree market. Instead of trying to compete, they point to the barriers to entry and try to convince politicians they should expand these barriers rather than tear them down. This may dilute their medallion value a bit but not as much as a free market for rides would do. What it will do is cut into the part-time drivers who won't want the hassle or expense of the privilege of paying for these things, pushing them from the marketplace.
There is at least one [bostonglobe.com] "Boston Uber Rapist" [google.com] the protectionists point to as an example of a "security threat" which they say justifies their corrupt system. How exactly their system would be effective against this has yet to be explained. Background checks will only find arrests and convictions, it's not a sure bet that anyone who passes will forever be angelic.
My understanding is Uber provides a million dollars of coverage on behalf of the drivers, and this is paid for by their cut of the price of the ride (20%, I'm told).
The last line of the summary should read Comerford said, not MacGregor since Comerford is the CEO and Baird MacGregor is the name of the company.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Friday July 31 2015, @10:22PM
It might not have occurred to him that these insurance companies have a vested interest in expanding their businesses by stoking fear in the public mind.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday August 01 2015, @12:09AM
Ontario? Like, where Ottawa is? Where Ashley Whatshername recently has a massive data leak? Now we find out why Uber is so popular there in the the Great White Two-timing North!
(Score: 2) by Appalbarry on Saturday August 01 2015, @04:39AM
"the insurance industry is working hard with the Ontario government to reduce personal consumer automobile insurance rates"
Yep. Mod "Funny." But only because there isn't a "Total Bullshit" mod option.