Uber has no hope in this town

[cybercoma]

insurance coverage could be void

we won't cover you

There's a big difference between these two sentences.

[overthere]

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.

Federal and provincial governments don't have auto insurance, they self- insure.

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

Read the story. The pre existing condition is a spurious and ridiculous premise. Its a huge bill, and the insurer is doing exactly what insurers do: everything possible to weasel out of their liability. The couple did in fact do their due diligence, got clearance from a physician to travel and could have no prior indication that they would need medical intervention. Why are you an apologist for injustice?

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.

They did nothing wrong. The only reasons Blue Cross will do anything at all is a) to avoid more adverse publicity which will result in more publicity or b ) pay the hospital to avoid having their customers being rejected at US medical facilities, which means a loss of business. The horrible publicity is earned and justified, and I won't be insuring with them again.

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

Uber is a taxi service, a public carrier. I have no objection to them introducing competition to the stupid system in place now. They don't need medallions, which are a control mechanism that serves only medallion holders. But... they must be properly insured and the drivers must be licensed/vetted by somebody other than Uber.

[guyser]

Federal and provincial governments don't have auto insurance, they self- insure.

So what? I never mentioned Fed or Prov owned vehicles. The majority of ...pretty much all of the social services workers use their own private vehicles. Most get a some sort of stipend to transport the people to various appts.

Read the story. The pre existing condition is a spurious and ridiculous premise. Its a huge bill, and the insurer is doing exactly what insurers do: everything possible to weasel out of their liability. The couple did in fact do their due diligence, got clearance from a physician to travel and could have no prior indication that they would need medical intervention. Why are you an apologist for injustice?

Im not, its just that I understand and know more about insurance.

No one, and certainly not at 6 months pregnant, should really travel like they did.

They also were informed early that the coverage was coming to an end. Now could they or did they do anything about it? Not sure.

But what most are failing to see is the bill includes a party who most assuredly WAS NOT part of the contract, the baby. Does anyone know what or how much the baby hospital bill was? I dont.

Pre-existing coverage is always tricky. Coverage can be denied if one so much as has a prescription changed within the 90 days prior to departure.

Pre-exisiting was her pregnancy.

They did nothing wrong.

Except travel too far.

And not ask about coverage for a baby.

And not read the fine print.

Apart from that, Ib guess we agree.

The only reasons Blue Cross will do anything at all is a) to avoid more adverse publicity which will result in more publicity or b ) pay the hospital to avoid having their customers being rejected at US medical facilities, which means a loss of business.

Too late for the first part, its out there.

They have zero concerns being rejected at US med facilities. They are the big cheese and hospitals will continue to welcome BC patients.

The horrible publicity is earned and justified, and I won't be insuring with them again.

I never would to begin with but for vary different reasons. Their wordings are slim and never worth it. Plenty of other good ones out there.

Uber is a taxi service, a public carrier. I have no objection to them introducing competition to the stupid system in place now. They don't need medallions, which are a control mechanism that serves only medallion holders. But... they must be properly insured and the drivers must be licensed/vetted by somebody other than Uber.

I get that, but what I cant wrap my head around is why you keep on the thrid party vetting when Cabbies and Uber must provide an MVR , Insurance Certificates which are all done by the same third parties.

[overthere]

and here is what the Insurance Bureau of Canada has to say about insurance and Uber:

The Insurance Bureau of Canada also has concerns about UberX. Frits Wortman, a senior consumer information officer with IBC, said if a private driver starts picking up passengers for money, without informing his insurer of what he’s doing, his insurer likely won’t honour the policy in an accident that injures the passenger or the driver.

“If the driver is misrepresenting his situation to the insurance company, the insurance is void from inception,” Wortman said.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/edmonton/Simons+city+without+enough+taxis+Uber+attractive+option/10410371/story.html

Note they are speaking of UberX ,not about mainstream Uber, which uses (insured) off duty cars driven by (properly licensed) drivers.

[guyser]

and here is what the Insurance Bureau of Canada has to say about insurance and Uber:

And there is a very valid reason why the IBC spokesman used the words "his insurer likely won’t honour the policy in an accident that injures the passenger or the driver.'

There is a greater chance they would have to honour the claim (but not he passengers injuries if he has a car in Ont)

Edited November 27, 2014 by Guyser2

[overthere]

There is nothing ambiguous about what the Insurance Bureau of Canada says about the UberX situation.

I don't get into vehicles that I know are not insured or licensed.

Your choice may be different.

[guyser]

There is nothing ambiguous about what the Insurance Bureau of Canada says about the UberX situation.

Of course there is, if not why didnt he say THEY WILL instead of 'likely' .

And my experience dictates that in many cases insurers while thinking and hoping they are let off find themselves not being so.

Insurance law also dictates they cannot be excused from paying the minimum liability limits. This would not be a criminal act.

I don't get into vehicles that I know are not insured or licensed.

Your choice may be different.

And part of that is an ambiguous statement since they are insured. Edited November 28, 2014 by Guyser2

[Boges]

I've used this recently in the US.

I can see why taxi services are freaking out. I wouldn't think of using a taxi if Uber was available.

You can see exactly what car is coming and when. No tipping or fumbling for cash either

It actually just feels like a friend is picking you up and not a taxi. You also get to rate the driver and he/she can rate you. What cab service offers that?

Edited December 30, 2014 by Boges

[guyser]

What cab service offers that?

The new and improved Cabbie service rolling out sometiome soon near you.

"Brought to you by your Municipal licencing office...Inspired by Uber"

Hey, they can even use my motto

[jacee]

It sounds awesome, but not here yet.

I don't know if this is appropriate here but there's a similar service for accommodation:

https://m.airbnb.ca/s/Toronto--Canada

Insurance is provided.

.

Edited December 30, 2014 by jacee

[ReeferMadness]

It sounds awesome, but not here yet.

I don't know if this is appropriate here but there's a similar service for accommodation:

https://m.airbnb.ca/s/Toronto--Canada

Insurance is provided.

.

Jacee, the link doesn't seem to work.

The whole Uber vs. cabbies fight is emblematic of a deeper struggle that is playing out across different trades and industries. For example, it has been going on for years in journalism. What is happening is that technology is undermining a traditional business model. On one hand, progress demands change for everyone's benefit. On the other, our current mode of heartless capitalism makes the change enormously stressful and often impoverishing for those affected.

An Oxford study released last year says that 45 percent of current jobs in the US could be eliminated in 20 years. I'm sure that some of these jobs can be replaced by new types of work but I see a time coming soon where we should either be scaling back the hours worked or looking at a work optional model (or both). The alternative will be unemployment rates that will be politically destabilizing.

Interestingly, the current Uber fight is only the tip of the iceberg. Within a decade, look for self-driving cars to eliminate the cabby entirely. This one technology advancement could be enormously disruptive, allowing automation not only of cabbies, but truck drivers, delivery drivers and other transport employees. Not only could it eliminate the drivers but the associated dispatchers, managers, HR professionals, etc. And even that is only the tip of the iceberg. Once you eliminate the human element, cabs will become cheaper than private car ownership, decimating the auto industry. Autonomous vehicles will have far fewer accidents than human drivers. This should be a good thing but it will be disastrous to the insurance industry, the vehicle repair industry, tow truck drivers, the list goes on.

Our leaders are mainly short term thinkers because people are genetically predisposed to worry more about what will happen tomorrow and next week than what will come in a decade. But we need to get our heads out of the sand if we're going to get on top of the tsunami that is coming.

[jacee]

Jacee, the link doesn't seem to work.

Hm ... it works for me, but you have to click 'Internet' on the popup menu. (Clicking airbnb is for an app.)

[Boges]

The Internet ruins everything.

[guyser]

Hm ... it works for me, but you have to click 'Internet' on the popup menu. (Clicking airbnb is for an app.)

Doesnt work for me either.

[overthere]

And part of that is an ambiguous statement since they are insured.

Nope.

Every time you insure, you are asked specifically if the vehicle will be used for hire/compensation.

I just insured a vehicle over the phone yesterday in a recorded call. It is asked for a reason. It is recorded for a reason. What could that reason possibly be?

[guyser]

Nope.

Umm...Yes. Liability cannot be denied a third party.

Every time you insure, you are asked specifically if the vehicle will be used for hire/compensation.

No you aren't. You are asked that when the app is done, subsequent additions or renewals arent asked that . It also asks, in the same question, if hauling a trailer. If one later gets a trailer the liability coverage is automatically insured from the vehicle pulling it, disclosure or not.

The liability remains the coverage. Same as someone getting paid under the table like UBER. Perhaps their physical damage will get suspended or cancelled when seeking compensation, but liabilty remains.

Liability will be assessed by the court and the ins co wont be able to win that one,they never do. (extremely rare case notwithstanding)

And that said, what do you care that the car doesnt get fixed? You dont own it.

You also have coverage through your own policy for Acc Benefits should an insury occurs.

I just insured a vehicle over the phone yesterday in a recorded call. It is asked for a reason. It is recorded for a reason. What could that reason possibly be?

Assess the risk .

Anything else you want to tell an insurance broker?

[jacee]

Doesnt work for me either.

Hmmm!

Try ...

https://www.airbnb.ca

Click "Internet" on the popup.

It's a great way to find travel accommodation, or make some extra cash.

.

Edited December 31, 2014 by jacee

[ReeferMadness]

Hmmm!

Try ...

https://www.airbnb.ca

Click "Internet" on the popup.

It's a great way to find travel accommodation, or make some extra cash.

.

That link works. The first one gave me a web page with a single word - "forbidden".

I would echo the question raised about Uber. If you are making money on a spare bedroom and your guest burns your house down or steals from you, where does that leave you from a standpoint of insurance? From the insurers standpoint, are you now running a B&B? And what happens if your guest trips on your front step? Will your insurer be there for you?

There are insurance, regulations, taxes and other expenses that contribute to the costs of taxis, hotels and other businesses. You may agree or disagree with them but they were put in place for reasons. Part of the reason that the costs of these services appear so attractive is that they circumvent these costs. If these services are allowed to displace the traditional services, we may find ourselves just relearning (the hard way) the reasons why those expenses exist in the first place.

I'm not saying do or don't. I am saying do the research.

[guyser]

That link works. The first one gave me a web page with a single word - "forbidden".

I would echo the question raised about Uber. If you are making money on a spare bedroom and your guest burns your house down or steals from you, where does that leave you from a standpoint of insurance?

It can go a couple of ways.

If a paying guest and they find out, you could be in some trouble. I would bet that the monies would be delayed in coming if they know.

The theft, again, a guest and not paying....then you are covered assuming it is a valid item and not over any set limit in your policy. There is the 'mysterious disappearance' clause on jewellry and the such.

From the insurers standpoint, are you now running a B&B? And what happens if your guest trips on your front step? Will your insurer be there for you?

If you are charging for the room on short stay basis, then its a commercial B&B and charged for. If a guest slips and sues you are covered under either the OL&T (rarely used anymore) or the more common CGL

If it is only a home policy and no coverages shows for rentals, the slip and fall may still be valid provided the person suing does not live there of any permanance.

There are insurance, regulations, taxes and other expenses that contribute to the costs of taxis, hotels and other businesses.

Correct, but what you may not know is the car insurance (UBER. Cabs,private veh's)is heavily regulated and controlled as to who gets what , when and why.

For instance, impaired driving, if you crash and get charged the insurance wont respond for the damage to your car, but they cannot deny an innocent party in a suit. Now the ins co may only be forced to ay the minimum in liability, which in this country is $200,000.

Home insurance is not regulated like auto ins.

You may agree or disagree with them but they were put in place for reasons. Part of the reason that the costs of these services appear so attractive is that they circumvent these costs. If these services are allowed to displace the traditional services, we may find ourselves just relearning (the hard way) the reasons why those expenses exist in the first place.

I'm not saying do or don't. I am saying do the research.

Again, all true, however what isnt in play with the above is the profit factor that Taxis have enjoyed.

The dumb cost for the plates is one. Its high because its lucrative. The owner of the plate and car (who never drives it) gets his profits, the drivers there cut and the dispatcher their cut.

Pay Uber to get the app, and the profit is the drivers.

Edited December 31, 2014 by Guyser2

[jacee]

That link works. The first one gave me a web page with a single word - "forbidden".

I would echo the question raised about Uber. If you are making money on a spare bedroom and your guest burns your house down or steals from you, where does that leave you from a standpoint of insurance? From the insurers standpoint, are you now running a B&B? And what happens if your guest trips on your front step? Will your insurer be there for you?

From reading the website, airbnb provides insurance as a backup. You have to abide by municipal bylaws, which vary but eg providing food (b&b ) means many inspections and licensing as does a rooming house, but just renting less than 5 rooms doesn't.

There are insurance, regulations, taxes and other expenses that contribute to the costs of taxis, hotels and other businesses. You may agree or disagree with them but they were put in place for reasons. Part of the reason that the costs of these services appear so attractive is that they circumvent these costs. If these services are allowed to displace the traditional services, we may find ourselves just relearning (the hard way) the reasons why those expenses exist in the first place.

I'm not saying do or don't. I am saying do the research.

airbnb appears to have done the research.

It's no different than renting a room in your home to a student, etc, which doesn't require licensing but you'd be wise to have extra liability insurance. airbnb has that.

Uber likely does too.

Edited December 31, 2014 by jacee

[guyser]

but you'd be wise to have extra liability insurance. airbnb has that.

.

Airbnb cover thier own ass, no one elses. The limit airbnb has is over and above what a homeowner carries. Once the homes insurance is exhuasted then theirs kicks in.

So if no insurance exists on the home, the level of airbnb, probably a million bucks kicks in AFTER you have coughed up the million.

[jacee]

It can go a couple of ways.

If a paying guest and they find out, you could be in some trouble. I would bet that the monies would be delayed in coming if they know.

The theft, again, a guest and not paying....then you are covered assuming it is a valid item and not over any set limit in your policy. There is the 'mysterious disappearance' clause on jewellry and the such.

If you are charging for the room on short stay basis, then its a commercial B&B and charged for.

Depends on municipal bylaws, but generally only if you provide food, and likely not for only 1 room.

.

[jacee]

It can go a couple of ways.

If a paying guest and they find out, you could be in some trouble. I would bet that the monies would be delayed in coming if they know.

The theft, again, a guest and not paying....then you are covered assuming it is a valid item and not over any set limit in your policy. There is the 'mysterious disappearance' clause on jewellry and the such.

If you are charging for the room on short stay basis, then its a commercial B&B and charged for.

Depends on municipal bylaws, but generally only if you provide food, and likely not for only 1 room.

.

[jacee]

Airbnb cover thier own ass, no one elses. The limit airbnb has is over and above what a homeowner carries. Once the homes insurance is exhuasted then theirs kicks in.

exactly.

So if no insurance exists on the home, the level of airbnb, probably a million bucks kicks in AFTER you have coughed up the million.

Renting? No.

That was just a friend staying over.

btw ... it's fun browsing the site and reading what hosts say about their neighbourhood. Great way to plan a vacation and get the local lowdown.

.

Edited December 31, 2014 by jacee

[guyser]

Depends on municipal bylaws, but generally only if you provide food, and likely not for only 1 room.

.

Muni bylaws dont really come into effect as refers to underwriting. They only conern themselves with mandating insurance, not the coverage itself.