I haven't had a chance to read it yet but Mr. Anon writes,
There are a lot of major problems with this policy and you will see them as you read it.
1) The whole UBER thing is a daisy chain of foreign corporations. UBER is incorporated in the Netherlands, James River Insurance in Bermuda and Raiser Corporation in Switzerland.
You aren't really naïve enough to think that the credit card money UBER collects goes to a US Bank are you? Remember the lyrics to the song:
"All the gold in California is in a bank in Beverly Hills in somebody else's name"
2) You don't need to be an insurance expert to look at the policy and determine the following:
a. This policy is designed for one purpose only: To protect the lily-white butt of UBER CEO Travis Kalanick and his top investors.
b. There is a virtual cornucopia of exclusions, exemptions, what-ifs, Catch-22's, etc,
"Oh by the way, that's not covered, and oh, neither is that."
3) You can see why this policy would not pay the $500,000 medical bill for the mother of the little girl run over killed by UBER in San Francisco.
4) It also claims it would not pay if the UBER driver was "Negligent"? Why else would there have been a wreck?
5) Even the "New, improved" UBER insurance policy would not correct any of the above defects.
6) Glaring omissions: Driver drug testing? FBI Fingerprinting? City permits? Personal Injury Protection (PIP)?, Vehicle inspections, Hours of Service, Mandatory Proof of Workers Comp, Towing, Rental vehicle while yours is in the shop, Subrogation (Reimbursement for loss of use of the vehicle and the income it could have produced had it not been wrecked).
The UBER policy is the longest policy in America with the fewest things actually covered. Unbelievable.
7) NO LIMO COMPANY IN THE USA COULD BE APPROVED FOR OPERATION WITH
THIS WORTHLESS, PHONEY POLICY. So, why does UBER get away with it?
Mr. Anon adds,
Not surprisingly the Uber Insurance Policy (Which is really Raiser, not Uber) does not provide the insurance coverage advertised or even close. As you will see below the actual coverage is contingent and illusory and the amount of coverage is not actually $1,000,000. Once again, Uber is trying with some success to hoodwink the public and the press, and is just plain lying.
The one-year policy runs from December 21, 2013 to December 21, 2014. This policy is issued by James River Insurance Company. It covers as named insureds Rasier LLC, Rasier-CA LLC and Rasier-DC LLC (hereinafter “Rasier”), all of which are affiliates of Uber Technologies and contracts with drivers but Raiser does not dispatch to those same drivers. This policy covers autos that are en route to pick up passengers or that are transporting passengers. It does not cover autos that are logged on to Uber’s system awaiting dispatches, which Uber last week claimed is the subject of a supplement to this policy.
As Uber has claimed, it does provide up to $1,000,000 in liability coverage for bodily injury or property damage to passengers or other third parties within the scope of the coverage. However, that coverage is available only if Rasier is liable to the third party or caused the accident. The coverage does not apply if the driver is negligent and the injured party fails to establish that Rasier is liable as well or caused the accident. Thus, in most cases the policy does not provide any liability coverage to the drivers. It also does not provide collision or medical payments to the drivers for damage to themselves or their personal cars.
A schedule attached to the policy names as “additional insureds” those persons “as required by written contract” (presumably the UberX drivers) and Uber Technologies. But the insurance afforded those additional insureds under this schedule covers only their liability for those accidents caused in whole or part by Rasier’s acts or omissions or those of third parties acting on Rasier’s behalf. The schedule does NOT cover drivers from accidents caused by their own negligent acts or omissions. Moreover, even this narrow coverage is constricted further by “limits of insurance” language in the schedule. It limits the coverage to the lesser of the amount on the face of the policy ($1 million) or the amount required by the contract between Rasier and the drivers. Rasier’s form contract (attached) only requires the drivers to carry the minimum amount required by state law. That might be as low as what is required for personal auto policies, which varies by state but could be in the range of $20,000.
Contrast this Insurance Policy with the insurance that Uber is currently advertising that it has, which can be found at:
For Uber, see e. http://support.uber.com/
entries/39894058-In-the-US- what-insurance-is-available- if-there-s-an-accident-
The Phantom should have sent you a copy of the Uber policy with this post.
Mr. Anon, good work. Just follow the insurance...there the rubber meets the road indeed. Before I forget Rasier is also the one that deposits uber driver's payments every thursday via ach.ReplyDelete
I google James River Insurance (JRI) company and found than last year, the state of Washington sued JRI because they were selling policies in the state of Washington which made the citizens who purchased them "give up" their birth right to a court trial and let a jury decide. The Washington Supreme Court ruled for the state. you can read it at the bottom of this.
Now back in beloved SF, as far as i remember the uber long winded-intended-to-confuse-you-so-you wont-sue "terms" that uber customers AND drivers have "agreed to" contains the same clause that prevents citizens from exercising their constitutional right. I think Dolan (the lawyer suing uber on behalf of the mother of the girl who got killed) by an uber driver wrote and warned the public about this last year. Maybe we can hear from him about this.
Ladies and gents, this policy is no accident. No sir. It is "the strategy" because the achille's heel in this scam is the insurance. It is no accident either that the insurer is out of the country. thus, making it very hard to bring them to a court room.
For one, Google Ventures senior vice president David Drummond and CHIEF LEGAL OFFICER along with David Bonderman (Harvard Law) joined the uber board. After all, Google led the $258 million financing. Do you think insurance was discussed ?
1. Wash vs JRI.
2. Uber and the lawyers financing
THANK YOU FOR THE ARTICLE, VERY INFORMATIVEReplyDelete
One thing I see on reading the insurance document is that drivers are still only covered from the time they have accepted a passenger and are en route to pick them up, until they drop them off. Which is a good deal less than what Uber is telling the public. Sofia Liu and her family would still be in the cold with this policy.ReplyDelete
Does anyone know if Bob Franklin is still around? If so, how could I contact him?ReplyDelete
Hi Mr. Foley,Delete
Unfortunately I heard that Bob Franklin died a year or two ago. I don't know any details. I think Mark Gruberg might now more about it
since the mantra is "follow the insurance" .ReplyDelete
1. saw this at sfgate. sf assistant DA (Conrad del Rosario) of SF is saying that tnc drivers "increasingly commit insurance fraud" "
"...Another type of fraud, which Del Rosario said is extensive, is rate evasion - drivers who buy personal policies, while intending to use their vehicles full time to carry paying passengers"
".. he recommended that drivers be required to show Lyft, UberX, Sidecar and similar companies proof that they had informed their personal carrier of their for-pay driving"
the note http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Drivers-for-ride-app-services-accused-of-fraud-5339357.php
2. The puc will have hearings on april 7 to hear about changing the insurance regulations. really ? would you be surprised to hear that uber blamed the puc for not having rules ? im not making it up.
"...In a statement, San Francisco's Uber said it welcomes public input. "For far too long, transportation regulation has been made in the dark, and it's long past time the riding public had a say," the company said.
uber accepts ANY insurance paper that has an expiration date that is not today. because they want the drivers. that is the fact jack.
where are the safety-first sf supervisors when you need them ?
Uber owners should carry the proper insurance. After a collision that left both the owner and a passenger badly injured end up paying for treatment and recovery out of their own pocket after being denied a claim from their insurance provider. On top of treatment and recovery what if the uber owner is sued by the passenger after learning they didn't carry the proper insurance.ReplyDelete