Uber has no hope in this town

[overthere]

While that would be a material change in risk from the stated class of business, and subsequently denied for claims, that doesnt mean one cannot , in certain circumstances , accept pay for a ride. Think of cost sharing, school trips etc.

They can and will deny coverage in very few circumstances since the industry is heavily regulated . Denial of coverage is a rare event , but plenty of people say otherwise, they generally dont undstand what the policy says.

somebody giving me $20 for gas is nothing at all like being dispatched to take a stranger from A to B for a specified fare plus tip.

And having personally witnessed insurance companies working very very hard to avoid paying- forgive me if I do not believe they'd pay for damages to anybody when you kill everybody on a 'casual' Uber dispatch. They'd fight it to death.

[guyser]

somebody giving me $20 for gas is nothing at all like being dispatched to take a stranger from A to B for a specified fare plus tip.

It is still taking money for a ride, but in most cases it would probably be acceptable.

And having personally witnessed insurance companies working very very hard to avoid paying- forgive me if I do not believe they'd pay for damages to anybody when you kill everybody on a 'casual' Uber dispatch. They'd fight it to death.

In the case of 'kill', insurance companies are happy to pay the bill. Its really cheap for them.

Anything else they want the ins co will have to be sued, always thus.

Any passengers accident benefits arent paid by the insurer of the car anyway, assuming the passenger has a car in his family (pretty much most do) The insurance a cab or Uber carries is secondary and only kicks in once the first line of liability is consumed.

[August1991]

somebody giving me $20 for gas is nothing at all like being dispatched to take a stranger from A to B for a specified fare plus tip.

Drifting through this thread, Overthere, you raise the critical question: if I sleep over at a friend's place in exchange for preparing a good meal and washing the dishes, or I stay at a hotel using a credit card - in the grand scheme of things, what's the difference?

For some here, it seems all about whether the government can regulate/take a cut of the action.

I have another take: it's all about trust. I can trust my friends and the hotel can trust my credit card. IOW, I agree with Overthere that "trust" is the difference between "$20 for gas" and taking "a stranger from A to B".

IMHO, the key point about Uber is that it offers a (lousy) system for creating trust. Drivers rate passengers and passengers rate drivers. But the ratings are not public knowledge and can be gamed.

Link

====

Baird has a 24/7 limo and driver. God knows why he tweeted about Uber.

Argus, IME Ottawa's taxi market is driven (huh) largely by the main game in town: federal employees with chits. It's a market in the same way that Gazprom airlines is a market.

Edited October 17, 2014 by August1991

[overthere]

It is still taking money for a ride, but in most cases it would probably be acceptable.

and my point is that operating a taxi without taxi insurance would be wholly unacceptable to any insurance company. If it isn't why do actual taxis bother with the extra expense for their insurance?

In the case of 'kill', insurance companies are happy to pay the bill.

Insurance companies(not brokers) are cheap and vindictive. A multi million dollar claim will be very closely examined with the purpose of avoiding paying. They do not care f their actions cost them the loss of that client, it is a trifle compared to the cost imposed or negotiated after they wear somebody down. I can think of two (both friends) in the last 2 years that involved contested claims , one a serious but not lethal motorcycle accident, the other a garage fire with about $40k damage. I also had a neighbour in the 90s who had a really serious accident that killed two and badly hurt two more including himself on the way to work at a minesite. The insurance company tried very hard to pay nothing and interviewed or tried to interview all his neighbours. They were keen to know how this carpooling worked, his drinking habits and much more. And they were very persistent. He eventually settled much later, during which time he got no money at all, could not work and basically lost everything. Do ya think he was treated fairly when negotiating from a position of complete vulnerability: sick, broke and threatened? They knew from day one they wouild have to pay, but how much depended on how far they could grind this guy. They are scum.

The fire was instructive. The adjuster(who of course works solely for the benefit of the company while purporting to help the customer) simply refused to ascribe the proper value to the things that were destroyed. The company made repeated offers at about half the loss. My friend realized what was up and hired a private adjuster for a flat fee of $500. The guy wrote one letter advising he was now representing my friend. Three days later a registered letter claim came with a cheque for $40k. The day after, a letter cancelling his home and auto policies and a small refund on premiums paid. Every time you get insurance, a standard question is' have you ever been denied or had insurance cancelled?'. He has to answer 'yes'. Now it is hard and expensive for him to get insurance.

[guyser]

and my point is that operating a taxi without taxi insurance would be wholly unacceptable to any insurance company.

Operating a taxi without a Public bus designation and insurance is illegal as respects operating a cab. But these arent cabs per se, they are private passenger cars used for transporting the insured, and on occassion an Uber passenger. A court may find that there is little difference , but it would also hold that they would have to distinguish a difference.

If it isn't why do actual taxis bother with the extra expense for their insurance?

To obtain a licence, a Taxi has to file his Certificate for Insurance. Taxis have established that is what they do, Yber not so much.

Insurance companies(not brokers) are cheap and vindictive. A multi million dollar claim will be very closely examined with the purpose of avoiding paying. They do not care f their actions cost them the loss of that client, it is a trifle compared to the cost imposed or negotiated after they wear somebody down.

Not at all valid nor true.

A multi million dollar loss will be scrutinized, and heavily. The Lawyers will set up the reserve soon after reviewing the the loss details.

Same loss details may show there is something untoward in the loss, thus further investigation will be ordered. That would be only prudent and one should and would expect that to occur. If something is found out that violates or nullifies the contract, then that will be taken up in court....as it should. Only prudent one does that.

In the meantime, especially if a car accident, the payments will begin within days of receipt, loss of wages, rehab and so forth.

I can think of two (both friends) in the last 2 years that involved contested claims , one a serious but not lethal motorcycle accident, the other a garage fire with about $40k damage. I also had a neighbour in the 90s who had a really serious accident that killed two and badly hurt two more including himself on the way to work at a minesite. The insurance company tried very hard to pay nothing and interviewed or tried to interview all his neighbours. They were keen to know how this carpooling worked, his drinking habits and much more. And they were very persistent. He eventually settled much later, during which time he got no money at all, could not work and basically lost everything. Do ya think he was treated fairly when negotiating from a position of complete vulnerability: sick, broke and threatened? They knew from day one they wouild have to pay, but how much depended on how far they could grind this guy. They are scum.

The fire was instructive. The adjuster(who of course works solely for the benefit of the company while purporting to help the customer) simply refused to ascribe the proper value to the things that were destroyed. The company made repeated offers at about half the loss. My friend realized what was up and hired a private adjuster for a flat fee of $500. The guy wrote one letter advising he was now representing my friend. Three days later a registered letter claim came with a cheque for $40k. The day after, a letter cancelling his home and auto policies and a small refund on premiums paid. Every time you get insurance, a standard question is' have you ever been denied or had insurance cancelled?'. He has to answer 'yes'. Now it is hard and expensive for him to get insurance.

Both anecdotal and frankly one sided and not believable for the most part.

No one goes without anything from the insurance co. All are mandated to pay something rather quickly.

Second, no one gets reg'd mail w a $40G cheque within 3 days. They may get the cheque in the mail, but they would have to have signed off on a Proof of Loss and had it notarized and returned. Then the cheque goes out......a lot more than three days lapses by.

Two of the bigger things people lie about, insurance and their paycheque. Would appear this continues.

[overthere]

Not at all valid nor true.

All true. There is not a speck of compassion in the insurance industry unless it is related directly to profit.

No one goes without anything from the insurance co. All are mandated to pay something rather quickly.

Second, no one gets reg'd mail w a $40G cheque within 3 days. They may get the cheque in the mail, but they would have to have signed off on a Proof of Loss and had it notarized and returned. Then the cheque goes out......a lot more than three days lapses by.

Complete horseshit. Insurance companies pay quickly if you agree to their offer of settlement, which is favourable to you in a very small number of cases. if a lot of money is involved, you'll be squeezed hard and squeezed hardest if they know you need the cash.

The reason they cut a cheque immediately is because he hired an independent advocate who knew the system. And then they immdiately screwed him for years to come. Vindictive, mean, cheap assholes. His widow still has trouble getting insurance.

[guyser]

All true.

I suppose you could come sift thru reams of documents that would prove you wrong, but I doubt you'd want the truth, it would expose your inane commentary .

There is not a speck of compassion in the insurance industry unless it is related directly to profit.

So now its compassion you want?

Get a dog.

No business has any real compassion, although some appear to have a little, normally when it hits the media they can become slightly so.

But I recall Calgary insurers made plenty of payments to insureds, and did ya know that flood isnt covered? The goodwill was worth it for them.

Pilot Ins losta case....and a large number of insureds for the stupidity they put one guy thru. So in fact the media coverage is not comsething any insurer wants. So....abide by the rules and all is good !

Complete horseshit.

Yes...your anecdotes are just that, complete horseshit.

Not to mention you are either lying ) to try and prove a point or being willfully and knowingly ignorant of how the system works.

They didnt get a cheque in 3 days because some scary monster adjuster got on the case,aint happening...no way no how.

That they told you as much may be true, but someone telling me that I would laugh. Just doesnt happen.

Insurance companies pay quickly if you agree to their offer of settlement, which is favourable to you in a very small number of cases. if a lot of money is involved, you'll be squeezed hard and squeezed hardest if they know you need the cash.

If you agree to their offer, yes , they pay rather quickly.

In other news, water is wet.

If a lot of money is involved the chances are it is because something catastrophic has occured . IN that case things do tend to slow down. A catastrophy generally means more than one thing happened and it takes time to sort out.

The reason they cut a cheque immediately is because he hired an independent advocate who knew the system. And then they immdiately screwed him for years to come. Vindictive, mean, cheap assholes. His widow still has trouble getting insurance.

To use your own words, complete horseshit.

But lets look at this.

You say they screwed him for years, yet he was paid. And they cancelled him.

So which is it?

Do they make random prank calls from the ins company ? They did afterall pay him, so they are good to go.

And another thing, she can get insurance easily. Tons of ins co's would love that business.

Maybe you meant she is having trouble getting coverage at a lower premium? Makes sense, she apparently had a large fire claim and I would be willing to bet it was self caused.

They tend to drop those clients pretty fast.

Sorry charlie, your story fails the sniff test.....apart from that horse excrement angle.

Edited October 20, 2014 by Guyser2

[hitops]

Drifting through this thread, Overthere, you raise the critical question: if I sleep over at a friend's place in exchange for preparing a good meal and washing the dishes, or I stay at a hotel using a credit card - in the grand scheme of things, what's the difference?

For some here, it seems all about whether the government can regulate/take a cut of the action.

I have another take: it's all about trust. I can trust my friends and the hotel can trust my credit card. IOW, I agree with Overthere that "trust" is the difference between "$20 for gas" and taking "a stranger from A to B".

IMHO, the key point about Uber is that it offers a (lousy) system for creating trust. Drivers rate passengers and passengers rate drivers. But the ratings are not public knowledge and can be gamed.

You may be able to game it a little, but it is public knowledge. When you request a ride, you see the rating of whatever driver's are in your area and you get to choose. You can also see how many ratings they have.

Uber was banned in Germany. It's the typical sclerotic, entrenched union interest against innovation because it threatens to disrupt their non-competitive comfortable monopoly. It's exactly the same as banning dishwashers in the interest of keeping people employed washing dishes, or banning cars because that takes work away from carriage drivers.

[overthere]

You may be able to game it a little, but it is public knowledge. When you request a ride, you see the rating of whatever driver's are in your area and you get to choose. You can also see how many ratings they have.

Uber was banned in Germany. It's the typical sclerotic, entrenched union interest against innovation because it threatens to disrupt their non-competitive comfortable monopoly. It's exactly the same as banning dishwashers in the interest of keeping people employed washing dishes, or banning cars because that takes work away from carriage drivers.

No, not quite.

I do not want to trust a public carrier - and that is what Uber is- unless the cars are safe and insured, and the drivers vetted. If those conditions are met, no problem.

You don't see a drivers record, you see whomever has the Uber-registered phone in their hand that night.

[cybercoma]

Uber drivers are rated, no? I thought Uber drops people if they fall below a certain rating. If you're not clean, safe, and dependable, I don't know how you would maintain you connection to Uber. It's like eBay, right? At first you may have been like, "I don't want to order from some random person over the internet." But their rating and review system has made it almost impossible to sell anything if you don't consistently get high scores.

Edited November 18, 2014 by cybercoma

[hitops]

No, not quite.

I do not want to trust a public carrier - and that is what Uber is- unless the cars are safe and insured, and the drivers vetted. If those conditions are met, no problem.

You don't see a drivers record, you see whomever has the Uber-registered phone in their hand that night.

I've never used it because they don't have it in my city, but my understanding is that the vehicle registration and licensing/insurance info has to be confirmed before uber will let you sign on.

[guyser]

- unless the cars are safe and insured, and the drivers vetted. If those conditions are met, no problem.

You don't see a drivers record, you see whomever has the Uber-registered phone in their hand that night.

Any vehicle on the road has to be insured as it is illegal not to, and how would one know a Taxi's insurance hasnt been cancelled recently? (Generallly the City is advised but that Cab could be on the street anyhow.)

No paying passenger sees the record of a driver. How could they?

[overthere]

Any vehicle on the road has to be insured as it is illegal not to, and how would one know a Taxi's insurance hasnt been cancelled recently? (Generallly the City is advised but that Cab could be on the street anyhow.)

No paying passenger sees the record of a driver. How could they?

Taxis, meaning real taxis, have insurance that covers carrying passengers for hire. It costs more. Ordinary insurance does not. Taxi drivers require medical exams and criminal record checks for the driver. Ordinary licenses do not. I don't want drivers vetted by the company they work for, I want a third party doing that. Taxis don't fool around much with unlicensed drivers of lack of insurance here because if they did, they will potentially lose their medallion(their ability to operate a car) and it is worth around $200k.

A paying passenger sees the local or provincial license of the authorized and licenced taxi driver. its posted in the car. Not something on somebodys phone, which is of course as portable as handing it to your cousin at shift change.. Not good enough. Licensed drivers or no Uber for me. Oh, and I want their cars safety inspected- my province has no general inspection regime- except for licensed taxis.

What this is really about here is the cost of taxi medallions. They don't issue new ones and a few people/companies control those that exist already. That means a shortage of cabs. They could solve this overnight by dumping that goofy anti- competition system, but it would mean those medallions aren't worth $200k, they're worth nothing. Oh well.

[guyser]

Taxis, meaning real taxis, have insurance that covers carrying passengers for hire. It costs more.

True, but it costs more becuase taxidrivers are notoriously lousy drivers and hit far too many things no one should be hitting.

The cover for carrying passengers is more expensive than it should be considering most people have their own car and insurance. But thats the way it works in this country.

Taxi drivers require medical exams and criminal record checks for the driver.

Not so sure about the med exams and the background check every four years really doesnt take any worries away.

I don't want drivers vetted by the company they work for, I want a third party doing that.

No difference here. No third party does it for the cab companies now anyhow. The driver must supply the background check and then supply the MVR yearly. No difference that I can see. As for med exams, again I dont see anyhwere they are performed for cabbies.

Taxis don't fool around much with unlicensed drivers of lack of insurance here because if they did, they will potentially lose their medallion(their ability to operate a car) and it is worth around $200k.

On the contrary they do far more than you know. Fake slips, inattentiveness of Municipal licensing, that sort of thing.

Oh, and I want their cars safety inspected- my province has no general inspection regime- except for licensed taxis.

Im willing to bet that the inspection is not done on all, but on surprise visits or after complaints. Standards are sometimes a dilly thing, such as one getting a safety done on a car.....with no engine.

What this is really about here is the cost of taxi medallions.

Correct, and Uber should force that change on them for the better.

[overthere]

True, but it costs more becuase taxidrivers are notoriously lousy drivers and hit far too many things no one should be hitting.

No. insurance costs more because there is a higher risk of accidents because taxis travel far more kms in a year than ordinary citizens. They also have higher liability since there is a legal assumption of competence not required of private drivers.

Not so sure about the med exams

required here and rightfully so of all professional drivers

On the contrary they do far more than you know. Fake slips, inattentiveness of Municipal licensing, that sort of thing.

the topic was lack of vehicle insurance, not municipal licensing. Nobody sane would risk their $200k medallion over lack of insurance.

Im willing to bet that the inspection is not done on all, but on surprise visits or after complaints.

Nope. required on licensed taxis, not required on private vehicles. Its not expensive, $100 to $149, Canadian Tire shops do them all the time.

Correct, and Uber should force that change on them for the better.

Agreed, but only if Uber cars are insured properly, and the drivers checked out by somebody other than Uber.

[guyser]

No. insurance costs more because there is a higher risk of accidents because taxis travel far more kms in a year than ordinary citizens. They also have higher liability since there is a legal assumption of competence not required of private drivers.

Not really how it works.

They do pay more because they drive more, but at the end the underwriting is done on an experience basis. Veh A never has a claim, he gets a break (very minor) but because the industry as a whole sucks at not hitting things, they are lumped together (rightfully so)and pay the price. The passenger coverage is a bit of a misnomer . Some of the costs for the overall cab insurance is buried in the passenger liability section.

required here and rightfully so of all professional drivers

Not for Cabbies in Calgary nor Edmonton. There is nothing in the rules for Med Exams.

the topic was lack of vehicle insurance, not municipal licensing. Nobody sane would risk their $200k medallion over lack of insurance.

And guess who monitors the insurance? Muni licensing departments that set the rules. And yes, they do risk it at times since the outcome rarely means revocation of same. It may be only for a few days but it does happen with great regularity.

Agreed, but only if Uber cars are insured properly, and the drivers checked out by somebody other than Uber.

If the car is on the road, then the same risk vis a vis insurance remains. People , whether cab drivers or not, will at times not have valid insurance.

If you own a car, then taking an Uber ride is not really a risk to most.

I do think the ramifications and enforcement after the fact is superior for Cabs versus Uber.

[overthere]

Not really how it works.

They do pay more because they drive more, but at the end the underwriting is done on an experience basis. Veh A never has a claim, he gets a break (very minor) but because the industry as a whole sucks at not hitting things, they are lumped together (rightfully so)and pay the price. The passenger coverage is a bit of a misnomer . Some of the costs for the overall cab insurance is buried in the passenger liability section.

Ummm no. Taxis very often run long hours with multiple drivers. The car is insured for multiple drivers, and their individual risk is not insured. That is another reason, along with the far higher kms driven and the consequent far higher risk of an accident- that means every car insured pays a fat premium. The whole industry sucks at hitting things mostly because they drive so much. I have no quibble because the premiums are higher for taxis, what I want is for Uber to have the same playing field as taxis, because they are taxis.

Regarding medical exams, these are the provincial requirements for a Class 4 license required of taxi operators, and what every Uber driver should have:

Permits an operator to drive:

• A taxi or ambulance
• A bus (including school or kindergarten buses) that has a seating capacity of not more than 24, excluding the operator
• All motor vehicles included under Class 5
• All motor vehicles included under Class 1, 2, 3 and 6, for learning only

The minimum learning or licensing age is 18.

Requirements: vision screening, written test, medical report, road test required if operator does not hold a class 1, 2, or 3 licence.

Vehicle for road test: any two axle motor vehicle, excluding a motorcycle.

It is too hard to cut and paste, but drivers in Edmonton also require this in addition to get a municipal photo ID and license:

driving abstract

police security clearance

driver training program

defensive driving program

English language competency screening

And every driver in Uber should also meet those minimum requirements, since the work is exactly the same as a taxi driver.

It may be only for a few days but it does happen with great regularity.

No, driving without insurance does not occur with any frequency at all for taxis. First of all, the first offence fine here starts around $3000. Second, a taxi operator risks medallion suspension or termination, which is a catastrophic loss.

[guyser]

Ummm no.

Umm yeah, it does.

Taxis very often run long hours with multiple drivers. The car is insured for multiple drivers, and their individual risk is not insured. That is another reason, along with the far higher kms driven and the consequent far higher risk of an accident- that means every car insured pays a fat premium. The whole industry sucks at hitting things mostly because they drive so much. I have no quibble because the premiums are higher for taxis,

They do run long hours, some of them anyway. But when being underwrtitten, the worst experienced driver is what is used to rate the cab. 2 could be great drivers, the 3rd horrible, base it on the bad guy.

They have far too many claims for what they do, far too many stupid claims too. But a claim is a claim.

Regarding medical exams, these are the provincial requirements for a Class 4 license required of taxi operators, and what every Uber driver should have:

Thank you for that, it was nowhere to be found on the listing requirements of cabbies in Calgary and Edmonton.

No, driving without insurance does not occur with any frequency at all for taxis. First of all, the first offence fine here starts around $3000. Second, a taxi operator risks medallion suspension or termination, which is a catastrophic loss.

First offence here is minimum fine of $5,000 and max is $20,000. Subsequent conviction is $10g min and max of $50,000.

It would appear crazy to most but some cabbies run for a spell without insurance, be it a day or a week or a month or longer.

Last estimate I saw was one in 5 cars passing has no insurance. I get that the loss would be bad, but surprisingly they do risk it.

[overthere]

I just checked my non taxi auto insurance policy.

One of the specific provisions is an answer of "No" to the following:

"Will the automobile be rented or leased or used for carrying passengers for hire or for carrying explosives or radioactive material?"

"If this information is inaccurate, please advise us immediately as insurance coverage could be void"

Translation: if you don't tell us you are running as an Uber and tell us and pay the money in advance, we won't cover you. Be warned.

[Boges]

So Toronto wants to go after Uber now. Mayor-Elect John Tory, however, says Uber is here to stay. Very interesting.

BTW Uber also has the ability to hail licensed cabbies too.

[guyser]

I just checked my non taxi auto insurance policy.

One of the specific provisions is an answer of "No" to the following:

"Will the automobile be rented or leased or used for carrying passengers for hire or for carrying explosives or radioactive material?"

"If this information is inaccurate, please advise us immediately as insurance coverage could be void"

Translation: if you don't tell us you are running as an Uber and tell us and pay the money in advance, we won't cover you. Be warned.Standard part of almost every vehicle insurance contract.

And then there are the details. Some people do carry for hire, think Church groups, old folks homes and the like. There is no charge for those risks for the most part since the car is used for much more. A cab is a cab unless one removes the plates and uses it as a daily commute/personal use car.

When the ins company finds out, they may get off risk (material change in risk) charge for the risk or move it to another division inside the company.

But generally, and only for severe cases involving criminality and damage to the vehicle, insurance companies cannot get away from paying out liability claims in accidents. They are pretty much stuck with that one, and thats where the huge payouts lie.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Guyser2

[guyser]

So Toronto wants to go after Uber now. Mayor-Elect John Tory, however, says Uber is here to stay. Very interesting.

BTW Uber also has the ability to hail licensed cabbies too.

It will get interesting, and probably messy too.

So you can hail a cab w Uber? Did not know that.

[Boges]

It will get interesting, and probably messy too.

So you can hail a cab w Uber? Did not know that.

If that Cabbie is signed up with Uber. There's an option for a Taxi when you're looking for a car on the map. Unsure if it the same rate or not. I've only downloaded the App, never got a chance to use it.

[overthere]

Some people do carry for hire, think Church groups, old folks homes and the like.

Those are not -for-profit to begin with , and that is also a clause in my standard auto policy, as follows:

" Is the vehicle used for car pools or other share-the-ride arrangements" It's right above the previous one I cited. The use of shared pool cars is likely to be less frequent than a normal auto because you are taking a turn and a fraction of the use of a taxi.

But generally, and only for severe cases involving criminality and damage to the vehicle, insurance companies cannot get away from paying out liability claims in accidents. They are pretty much stuck with that one, and thats where the huge payouts lie.

You're welcome to believe that, but I won't. It says right in black and white next to the limitations on my policy what can happen, and does happen. I saw a story about something similar just this morning, a denial of claim for spurious reasons. http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/saskatchewan-couple-considering-bankruptcy-after-1m-medical-bill-1.2108911

Auto insurance is no different.

I would not get in a public carrier like Uber unless I knew there was a requirement for every taxi to be insured and licensed.

[guyser]

Those are not -for-profit to begin with , and that is also a clause in my standard auto policy, as follows:

" Is the vehicle used for car pools or other share-the-ride arrangements" It's right above the previous one I cited. The use of shared pool cars is likely to be less frequent than a normal auto because you are taking a turn and a fraction of the use of a taxi.

Not for profit, some are Govt agencies where the employee is paid to get people to clinics and so on. They tend to get a break, but the fact remains they are paid to transport. Its a tricky situation.

You're welcome to believe that, but I won't. It says right in black and white next to the limitations on my policy what can happen, and does happen.

Not only will I believe it, I know it happens all the time right across this country. If a drunk driver gets into a crash, the company cannot escape liability but they will escape pohysical damage on the drunks car....unless it is leased or financed (generally w finance they dont care, you have to keep paying no matter what)

I saw a story about something similar just this morning, a denial of claim for spurious reasons.

There is nothing even remotely similar to what we are talking.

They are not denying for spurious reasons, they are denying for pre-existing conditions and because they had little forthought on the possible outcomes.

To be honest, what these people did was dumb, foolish and will cost them . Maybe...just maybe Blue Cross will , behind the scenes, get some reduced payment plan and pay it off to avoid more horrible publicity.

But this case and Uber are nowhere near the same, let alone in same galaxy.

I would not get in a public carrier like Uber unless I knew there was a requirement for every taxi to be insured and licensed.

They are required, the difference is the training, the municipal licensing and regualtions for Taxi cabs.