Uber has no hope in this town

[jacee]

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

I was referring to what you said about "commercial b&b".

It isn't unless you provide food.

It's just renting a room, which lots of people do for students, etc.

.

[guyser]

It's just renting a room, which lots of people do for students, etc.

.

Then thats another whole set of problems.

[jacee]

But it's not a legal problem, nor is airbnb imo.

[guyser]

But it's not a legal problem, nor is airbnb imo.

Yes and no.

It appears many of the new condos are being snapped up and rented out in contravention of purchase agreements . Long term rentals arent the concern, its doing it on short term that is.

Its a legal problem for those that get caught, but I suspect very few do. I dont think Airbnb have too many concerns apart from the vicarious/shortfall aspect of legal liability.

[overthere]

Condo boards cannot prevent a home from being rented out in the usual fashion, but they do have ways of controlling bnb activities or short term rentals.

All the bylaws I've seen require that an owner not use the unit 'for any purpose other than as a single family residence'.

[Boges]

Uber is here to stay, you guys are just getting down in a tedious legal argument that may not even ever see a courtroom.

[guyser]

Uber is here to stay, you guys are just getting down in a tedious legal argument that may not even ever see a courtroom.

I dont think anyone feels Uber will go away (hope not anyway), we are just doing a sidebar to ramifications of such and related activities.

[jacee]

Condo boards cannot prevent a home from being rented out in the usual fashion, but they do have ways of controlling bnb activities or short term rentals.

All the bylaws I've seen require that an owner not use the unit 'for any purpose other than as a single family residence'.

It's up to the homeowner to check their condo agreements and municipal bylaws and the rules vary from place to place.

.

[overthere]

Condo agreements?

I'm talking about bylaws that are part of the land title and apply to all owners.

If you bought the place, you agreed.

[overthere]

Uber is on hold in Edmonton http://globalnews.ca/news/1783829/edmonton-council-chambers-packed-full-for-uber-debate/

Or rather, the existing bylaws will be enforced for now .

Liability issues: the Insurance Bureau of Canada says by using a third-party ride sharing app in a personal vehicle, with personal insurance, you are essentially uninsured. Uber says if a claim was to be denied, its $5 million liability coverage would kick in.

Uber started operating in Edmonton Dec. 18. The company requires its drivers to submit a copy of their personal insurance. Its rides are further protected by their own $5-million commercial insurance plan.

However, Heather Mack, Alberta representative of the Insurance Bureau of Canada, warned those personal plans are in jeopardy if the plan holder is driving passengers for a fee and hasn’t told their insurer.

A proper plan would cost between $6,000 and $10,000 a year, Mack said.

When asked if their insurance has been tested in Canada, Uber's public policy lead Chris Schafer said: “Not to my knowledge.”

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Edmonton+council+moves+regulate+ride+sharing+companies/10744559/story.html

I'd be more interested in getting into a cab if Uber posted a $5 million bond, or if city lawyers determined that the Uber $5 million liability policy was specific to local taxi services and sufficient coverage for the city operations, not the entire country.

[guyser]

What I bet Uber isnt telling its drivers is that the $5M is over and above the first respondent liability, which is the drivers own veh insurance.

Basically it means that should the lower limit be denied, Uber only pays excess over $1M (presumed lower limit)

So judgment of $1.2M to the plaintiff, Uber pays $200G, but the driver is still on the hook for $1M. (actually only $200,000 less as that it minimum an insurer must pay)

On top of that, note the language the IBC uses, 'you are essentially uninsured' . They cannot of course say it voids or one isnt insured since they have no way of knowing which way the courts will rule once a case makes it that far.

So driver gets told no liability cvg by insurance co.

Driver sues ins co

Court rules one way or another......experience tells me Ins Company will have to pay a large chunk, they generally dont win these things

Driver sues broker....brokers almost never win cases since they get settled out of court much the time.

Driver calls Uber , Uber says sure...heres $200G's...

"WTF Uber?"

[overthere]

What I bet Uber isnt telling its drivers is that the $5M is over and above the first respondent liability, which is the drivers own veh insurance.

The amount of that insurance is zero, according to the insurers. They want their 6000 to 10000 per year for public carrier insurance, as noted in the Journal article linked.

So judgment of $1.2M to the plaintiff, Uber pays $200G, but the driver is still on the hook for $1M. (actually only $200,000 less as that it minimum an insurer must pay)

No, that is simply your assumption. I'd like to see the Uber contract and their wording on what kind of insurance the driver must carry. And more baloney, there is no 'minimum an insurer must pay'. The minimum is zero. Having a policy does not mean the insurer is obligated to pay simply because there is a claim. Duh.

On top of that, note the language the IBC uses, 'you are essentially uninsured' .

Again, it is clear that the IBC is stating if you lie about carrying people for hire, we will deny your claim. They don't know what you do in your spoare time and don';t care much until your passengers put their broken limbs out for payment. Then they care. They care about your lies and their money.

experience tells me Ins Company will have to pay a large chunk, they generally dont win these things

Oh really? Then link to a case where it has happened, where an insurer has been lied to about carrying peopkle for hire and has lost. Bonus points for Uber involvement.

[guyser]

The amount of that insurance is zero, according to the insurers.

#1-IBC is not insurers.

#2- Why did they use 'essentially' ? (Ill answer that in a sec.

No, that is simply your assumption.

No, thats the way it works, not an assumption of any kind. INsurers are always on the hook for the $200G

Drunk driver kills? Insurer does not pay damage for the car the drunk drove, but they will if sued by TP be on the hook for $200G if they lose the case.(Ont at least, more in other jurisdictions)

And more baloney, there is no 'minimum an insurer must pay'. The minimum is zero. Having a policy does not mean the insurer is obligated to pay simply because there is a claim. Duh.

Your arrogance is duly noted.

Your wrong...plain wrong.

Again, it is clear that the IBC is stating if you lie about carrying people for hire, we will deny your claim.

Hmmm....no they dont, they say essentially. Of course they cannot say definitively as they arent insurers and they no minimum statutes of Lia dont allow them to say so.

They don't know what you do in your spoare time and don';t care much until your passengers put their broken limbs out for payment.

#1- they passenger first exhausts his own insurance for Accident Benefits, ergo one cannot put limbs out for payment, they dont do that unless and only if they do not have their own insurance on a car.

Oh really? Then link to a case where it has happened, where an insurer has been lied to about carrying peopkle for hire and has lost. Bonus points for Uber involvement.

No Uber claim has made it to court, but my post related to minimums for insurers still stands, and my example was drunk driving.

But here ya go, Alberta insurance. Drunk driver....insurer pays.

Go read page 33 . You'll get straightened out and see what was being said all along.

ETA: My apologies, I forgot the link.

http://www.fieldlaw.com/articles/bav_vehicleinsuranceissuesandimpaireddriving.pdf

Edited January 21, 2015 by Guyser2

[overthere]

#1-IBC is not insurers.

could you be more pedantic? I'm guessing 'yes'.

INsurers are always on the hook for the $200G

No they are not, they evaulate every claim. Its a gross assumption on your part to assume that UBERs insurance covers every circumstance. Now is a good time to post that link I asked for with one case in Canada where is has covered.

Your arrogance is duly noted.

Your wrong...plain wrong.

Your partisan cheerleading is noted. You're a broker, correct?.

Insurance companies dispute claims all the time. But you know that UBERs insurer will just ... pay..

Hmmm....no they dont, they say essentially. Of course they cannot say definitively as they arent insurers and they no minimum statutes of Lia dont allow them to say so.

More pedantic tapdancing. The IBC has clearly stated their concern and policy, and they represent the insurers of Canada. You may continue to pretend otherwise.

#1- they passenger first exhausts his own insurance for Accident Benefits, ergo one cannot put limbs out for payment, they dont do that unless and only if they do not have their own insurance on a car.

Huh. This is an English language board. Why on earth would a passenger in a public carrier have their own liability insurance?

No Uber claim has made it to court,

So you have nothing to indicate that an insurer would insure a Uber driver that has fraudulently misrepresented themselves on their insurance application, or when and how exactly that Uber policy might apply when the car owner has failed to obtain correct insurance, as in 'passenger for hire' insurance.

Thanks for nothing.

Tell me, why do insurers all ask all those specific questions at the outset of every application if they are completely meaningless and have no possibility of consequences when car owners lie?

[guyser]

could you be more pedantic? I'm guessing 'yes'.

Dont make dumb claims that they are, or intimate that they are insurers.

No they are not, they evaulate every claim.

Never said they didnt now did I? Dont ascribe things I dont say...K ?

Its a gross assumption on your part to assume that UBERs insurance covers every circumstance.

And again with things I didn t say

Good grief.

Now is a good time to post that link I asked for with one case in Canada where is has covered.

Link....go read it.

Of course no Uber claims have made it to court so no one klnows how the courts will advise, but if we can take illegal activities, IE drunk driving, we know insurers HAVE TO PAY AS THE LINK STATES.

I do hope that gets through.

Insurance companies dispute claims all the time.

Waters wet....yay !!!

But you know that UBERs insurer will just ... pay..

And again, not something I said.

But you know jack about insurance and even less about excess insurance. .....why not ask instead of this folly?

. The IBC has clearly stated their concern and policy, and they represent the insurers of Canada. You may continue to pretend otherwise.

Yes, Rep. But they cannot speak for them apart from being a policy adviser, consumer awareness provider and as a trade ass'n......they most definitely cannot say 'We will pay/Not pay on this claim or these types.

They know better. SO they use words like 'Essentially'

Huh. This is an English language board. Why on earth would a passenger in a public carrier have their own liability insurance?

I dont know why they would. Who said they did?

So you have nothing to indicate that an insurer would insure a Uber driver that has fraudulently misrepresented themselves on their insurance application, or when and how exactly that Uber policy might apply when the car owner has failed to obtain correct insurance, as in 'passenger for hire' insurance.

Thanks for nothing.

A court will determine how much an insurance company will pay when presented with the facts in court. Insurer can deny at the outset, but they cannot deny the legally mandated minimums, and if the court says otherwise to more money, they would have to appeal or pay it off.

The reason I used the drunk driving scenario, is most assume an insurer is off the hook (not to men tion its illegal action). Nope, not at all the case.

In fact in Alberta they are on the hook for the limits of the insureds policy, so if one carries $1M and crashes drunk, the TP damage and property damage will be paid.

So, a person with Uber, his car is insured, legally, for all the times he drives it as his personal use car. Once he starts his Uber app as a driver for them, he violates that agreeement (same as a drunk driver) and then he goes back to being legal when he drives himself elsewhere but that does not mean the insurer can shrug and say its not our problem. They will be sued and by law they will have to respond

The court might say to them, pay the minimum, the maximum, somehwere in between, but the idea that they can shrug and walk away is delusional.

Tell me, why do insurers all ask all those specific questions at the outset of every application if they are completely meaningless and have no possibility of consequences when car owners lie?

Why are they meaningless? Did you decide that arbitrarily ? Is that how you are coming to a discussion about insurance?

But anyway....

Rating for use

Rating for territory

KM's driven

Number of drivers

MVR record

Autoplus record

Cancellations

lapses/gaps in insurance

claims all

At fault claims

Financial responsibility shortfalls from past

Cancellations for non pay

Excluded drivers

.....all those are inputted to determine the rate applicable.

You seem to be making the classic mistake a lot of people do, they wonder why the insurer is paying the claim when facts contradict the application. Those people dont consider the courts actions, the underlying principles of making whole, how little things can make something go from black and white to gray.

And courts , as do lawyers, know that deep pockets (Ins Co) are generally made to pay in the end. Most the time, out of court settlements occur. A good lawyer puts every single insurance company on record for the person/thing/entity who touched/thought of/contributed to the claim.

The more Ins Co's , the more likelihood of settlements and or more payment doled out to each insurer.

I do hope that cleared up the misconceptions you had.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Guyser2

[overthere]

But anyway....

Rating for use

Rating for territory

KM's driven

Number of drivers

MVR record

Autoplus record

Cancellations

lapses/gaps in insurance

claims all

At fault claims

Financial responsibility shortfalls from past

Cancellations for non pay

Excluded drivers

.....all those are inputted to determine the rate applicable.

and to determine if the company wishes to take the risk at all.

If you lie on something significant like being a public carrier while getting private car premiums ., they won't pay in the event of an accident. Policy void, you lied. Same thing if you lie about a pre existing conditon on health insurance. Lie, void.

Your remedy appears to be to take an insurer to court. Screw that, I'll just get in a taxi that I think has a decent chance of having insurance. Your actions may differ.

UberX doesn't give a shit about this because they are not really on the hook, none of these drivers are their employees. And I'd like to see their polciy to see what is specifically covered. Their 'excess isnurance' doesn't kick in if nothing is paid out to begin with.

[guyser]

Im glad we have moved off on the rest of it, I assume you checked and now no longer feel violations mean the Ins Co can just walk away. Good.

and to determine if the company wishes to take the risk at all.

Since many drivers only fill out one application , or a few over the course of their lifetime, these questions posed above are only for new business.

A new app is not asked for every year. Thus , the issue with a driver contracting with Uber will muddy the issue on the Ins Co's end if it goes to court due to a claim. Yes of course if an Ins Co finds out that one of thiers is with Uber, they will immediately issue a cancellation.....which will take effect in two weeks as per statute. In the meantime, should a claim arise, theyll likely be on the hook for some of it, all of it and almost never, none of it.

Now folks might realize why car ins is so expensive. (Worst is Toronto rating area)

The next best case scenario I can offer is pizza delivery people. Generally, and almost entirely, they do NOT inform their ins co and can be cover for Liability shoulkd it arise, even though it violates some agreements.

If you lie on something significant like being a public carrier while getting private car premiums ., they won't pay in the event of an accident. Policy void, you lied.

NO, that is incorrect for many reasons. A public carrier is at all times a public carrier. Uber is not at all tiomes an Uber driver. The second he drops someone off, he is driving a passenger car like anyone else. That complicates things for Ins Co's and the courts .

And of course, its not lying if you are not asked the questions, and the majority of people renew with the same company, thus ....no lying since no application.

And as said before, the Ins CO HAS to pay minimums under Liability and Accident Benefits as previously stated. Some cases that is as much as full liability to $200,000 (minimum in Ont)

Same thing if you lie about a pre existing conditon on health insurance. Lie, void.

No , not even close.

They operate under completely different rules and regulations. It is folly to even compare since there are somany differences.

Your remedy appears to be to take an insurer to court. Screw that, I'll just get in a taxi that I think has a decent chance of having insurance. Your actions may differ.

I have no clue what you are trying to say, and I suspect that you dont either, 'my remedy' ? Thats for the lawyers so sorry, no idea what point you are attempting to make here.

UberX doesn't give a shit about this because they are not really on the hook, none of these drivers are their employees.

Uber is quite concerned. They have a lot of money invested. They ARE on the hook, as far as having the Ins CO responding on their behalf.

And I'd like to see their polciy to see what is specifically covered. Their 'excess isnurance' doesn't kick in if nothing is paid out to begin with.

Oh sure it does.

The underlying policy ( the Uber driver) does not dictate the terms of the overlying policy (Uber) .

For one, the drivers policy is is an OAP#1 Form which has hard set rules and regs, the Uber policy would be an Excess /CMP policy.

Uber would , (and of course Underwriters would know and rate for), have to provide a description of their activites

to a Broker who in turn coveys that to the market hoping an interested U/W agrees to write the policy.

And considering the millions that the U/W would be committing his company to, there isnt a company operating in Canada who wouold not know what Uber is.

So they rate the exposure, which of course is Liability only , and charge accordingly. Any claim presented to them would have to be dealt with by the Ins Co's lawyers, IOW they would have to go to court and the process therein.

Ya know, you could ask some of this, the assumptions made and comparisons shown are not even close

Edited January 24, 2015 by Guyser2

[Boges]

The Star has an article about this today.

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2015/02/04/insurance-bureau-raises-concerns-about-extent-of-uber-coverage.html

While Uber Canada assures the public it aims to offer the safest ride on Toronto’s roads, the country’s insurance lobby fears the company might not provide adequate insurance protection.

“It’s like Santa Claus — you hope it exists but you’re kind of skeptical,” said Pete Karageorgos, director of consumer and industry relations for the Insurance Bureau of Canada.

The insurance bureau’s concern revolves around personal and commercial insurance.

Licensed Toronto taxis need commercial insurance, a more comprehensive and costly form of coverage than the personal insurance carried by most drivers. The bureau says it’s unclear whether UberX drivers — those who use their own cars to pick up fare-paying customers for rides arranged through the company’s smart phone app — are required to have commercial insurance.

What Uber Canada will say is this: If an accident occurs during an UberX trip, Canadians can “rest assured” passengers, pedestrians and other motorists are “well covered” by commercial auto insurance in addition to any insurance coverage maintained by the driver, Uber Canada spokesman Xavier Van Chau wrote in email.

Is commercial insurance really expensive? There a cost benefit analysis at work here. If I did work for Uber (and like everyone, I'd be tempted to try it out), I'd just bite the bullet, it can't cost so much that it would make working for Uber impractical.

I called my insurance company about coverage for renting a car in the US (So I didn't have to buy the rental companies insurance) It came to like $2/month to be covered for a rental car at any time.

[guyser]

Is commercial insurance really expensive? There a cost benefit analysis at work here. If I did work for Uber (and like everyone, I'd be tempted to try it out), I'd just bite the bullet, it can't cost so much that it would make working for Uber impractical.

Quite expensive, which is why the avg Uber guy will forego getting it.

Depending on your record and prior commercial coverage it likely would be too expensive for the casual driver for Uber.

There are very few carriers who want anything to do with insuring taxis , Facility (insurer of last resort) is one of the main ones and their rates are outrageous. If one has a fleet and great prior record then its a different story.

Guesstimate if you were to take this on? Something in the neighbourhood of $7-$10,000 . Now can the avg Uber driver recoop enough to make it profitable? Perhaps but not likely.

I called my insurance company about coverage for renting a car in the US (So I didn't have to buy the rental companies insurance) It came to like $2/month to be covered for a rental car at any time.

This is entirely a different kettle of fish. You are already paying to insure your car, adding the OPCF #27 merely covers you for the rental ,they are extending your premium for the car you own that you are not driving when renting one.

My take on that is to pay extra for the rental when down south. I know it is expensive but look at it this way.

You are in a strange city, strange roads and a strange car. If you are in an at fault accident then all the details of same stay down there. Chances are insurers up here will not find out, saving you from being charged an at fault accident and rates rise. (meaning 1,000s of $)

Now...if you wipe out a bus full of schoolkids we will find out and youll get dinged but that will be the leats of your worries.

If you are always going to the same place , say a home in Florida, then getting the OPCF 27 makes sense, but beware , it is a form follow policy and what coverage you have here is the same down there. But buyer beware, plenty of insurers have a limit on the Rental Covg , seems %50,000 is the avg limit.

So dont rent a BMW or similar or youll be out some cash. And for heavens sake, always retuirn the car at night

Edited February 5, 2015 by Guyser2

[overthere]

What Uber Canada will say is this: If an accident occurs during an UberX trip, Canadians can “rest assured” passengers, pedestrians and other motorists are “well covered” by commercial auto insurance in addition to any insurance coverage maintained by the driver, Uber Canada spokesman Xavier Van Chau wrote in email.

The driver doesn't have any coverage 'maintianed' if he is using a private vehicle for hire purposes. Uber refuses to provide anybody a copy of the purported commerical autop insurance carried by Uber on behalf of their fleet. They would not provide it to Edmonton City Council, and they won't provide it to potential drivers that ask- or wouldn't for the two people I know that requested it when considering working for Uber,

In Edmonton, Uber is now operating for free. Call a Uber cab, it costs nothing. Uber is paying their drivers 80% of the fare out of their pocket. City lawyers are taking the stance that it doesn't matter who pays for the trip, they are a public carrier and breaking the law. An injunction is forthcoming. Time to settle in with a box of popcorn.

Is commercial insurance really expensive? There a cost benefit analysis at work here. If I did work for Uber (and like everyone, I'd be tempted to try it out), I'd just bite the bullet, it can't cost so much that it would make working for Uber impractical.

$6 to $10K per year here.

When you do that cost benefit analysis, calculate what your net worth will be after you get your ass sued into the Iron Age when your insurance carrier declines coverage entirely after the horrible accident. Also calculate your legal bills when you try and get Uber to cough up a nickel on their supposed blanket policy that nobody has seen yet.

[guyser]

The driver doesn't have any coverage 'maintianed' if he is using a private vehicle for hire purposes.

Yes the driver does have coverage maintained.The driver on his way to work has it, but he doesnt 10 seconds later? Insurance doesnt work that way. It may not be what is ultimately needed but there is insurance in place. Think of the drunk driver scenario discussed earlier.

Its also wise to look at the words used by Uber, they are being very disingenuous with the press . Pretty sneaky of them.

Uber refuses to provide anybody a copy of the purported commerical autop insurance carried by Uber on behalf of their fleet. They would not provide it to Edmonton City Council, and they won't provide it to potential drivers that ask- or wouldn't for the two people I know that requested it when considering working for Uber,

Thats because Uber doesnt carry Commercial Auto Insurance because they dont own the cars. They would carry excess Liability and certainly Comprehensive General Liability Insurance.

They could show what they have but I suspect they wont since no operating agency in Edmonton has asked for a Certificate, which is their right, but without that request, they dont get to see the policy.

That goes for anyone by the way. No company or person should see anothers policy voluntarily. If the third party needs assurance, then they request a Certificate which spells out the particulars that affect them, but they are not privy to all the limits and coverage on the policy.

But Uber may have to play ball a bit better than this if they want to make a go of it, but then again, they dont want all the red tape that comes with it.

In Edmonton, Uber is now operating for free. Call a Uber cab, it costs nothing. Uber is paying their drivers 80% of the fare out of their pocket. City lawyers are taking the stance that it doesn't matter who pays for the trip, they are a public carrier and breaking the law.

Glad Uber can afford to do so. Yikes.

City lawyers have their opinion, they also know that the courts and the lawyers from the other side have an opinion. What may be law is fine, but as discussed earlier, that may not be enough to get an insurer off the hook.

When you do that cost benefit analysis, calculate what your net worth will be after you get your ass sued into the Iron Age when your insurance carrier declines coverage entirely after the horrible accident. Also calculate your legal bills when you try and get Uber to cough up a nickel on their supposed blanket policy that nobody has seen yet.

The insurance company cannot deny a claimant suing them. They have to respond.

Once thru discovery and all that legal junk, then they can apply to be excused but that will be extremely hard for them to do. It could be cheaper for them to pay it off , perhaps negotiate a lower payout (settle out of court) or maybe other insurers will kick in money behind the scenes and have the current litigant push hard for a total exclusion in order to use it on other claimants arising from Uber accidents.

Id bet my life on Uber having a policy, no doubt about it. But it would be excess insurance, and aUBer too would have to respond to a lawsuit. Since there is no way Uber found coverage for anything other than a service for hooking up people and drivers I cannot fathom any scenario that they are not court demanded to pay above and beyond the first responder insurance.

Since many Provinces have set limits/threshholds for compensation resulting from a car accident, only the horrific accident is ever going to make a dent in this. Minor Injury and own a car...?...claim from your own carrier (Statute )

But if you dont own a car....well, you may be in for a wait. However , even there is an out for that person. Uninsured Vehicle coverage is everywhere and it is one avenue a person denied results from an injury in an Uber car could turn to.

Edited February 6, 2015 by Guyser2

[overthere]

Thats because Uber doesnt carry Commercial Auto Insurance because they dont own the cars. They would carry excess Liability and certainly Comprehensive General Liability Insurance.

Thanks for the pedantry. That was urgently needed.

They could show what they have but I suspect they wont since no operating agency in Edmonton has asked for a Certificate, which is their right, but without that request, they dont get to see the policy.

Wrong. Council asked for it. Two people of my acquaintance(both retirees looking for some easy extra money) asked for it. Like any prudent person s, all of those want to understand exactly what is involved. Uber refused.

But it would be excess insurance,

Translation: they have nothing, since they know the drivers effectively have no insurance. The excess of zero coverage is zero. Uber knows their liability insurance, if in fact it exists, is woerthless.

I'm pleased Edmonton is insisting that Uber have coverage before running what is nothing more than another taxi service. Their claims of 'ridesharing' are worse than lies.

The first person killed or maimed in an uninsured Uber txi will sue everybody, and the muncipalities who sanction an unlicensed, uninsured public csriier by doing nothing will be first on the long list of defendants. Why go after some unemployed ahole who owns a wrecked 2006 Camry when there are fatter fish to fry? And fry they will.

But if you dont own a car....well, you may be in for a wait. However , even there is an out for that person. Uninsured Vehicle coverage is everywhere and it is one avenue a person denied results from an injury in an Uber car could turn to.

Or, you could do the sane and sensible thing and refuse to get into an uninsured vehicle.

Glad to see you're acknowledging that UBer passengers won't be covered.

[overthere]

The latest :

Park it Uber: City seeks court injunction to stop car-sharing service from operating

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/edmonton/Park+Uber+City+seeks+court+injunction+stop+sharing/10790824/story.html

The court filing says Uber is acting as a taxi broker without a licence. It is recruiting, screening and dispatching individuals who are not licensed taxi drivers. It charges passengers for transportation according to prices it determines.

Uber has argued it is a ride-sharing company, part of a new sharing economy, and therefore falls outside of Edmonton’s vehicle-for-hire bylaws.

In its filing, the City of Edmonton objected to that terminology.

“The term ride sharing is, in my view, another word for carpooling. It is clear from Uber’s operations that it is not engaged in or facilitating carpooling. It brokers vehicle transportation for compensation only,” said Garry Dziwenka, director of business licensing and vehicle for hire, in an affidavit filed with the court.

The city is seeking a ruling to stop Uber from operating as a taxi brokerage. It is also asking for Uber to be forced to “prominently post” a copy of any court order on its website and send a copy to anyone who has driven or taken an Uber ride within two days.

[jacee]

http://m.thestar.com/#/article/business/2014/11/21/why_uber_has_a_canadian_privacy_problem.html

The popularity of a convenient, well-priced alternative, when contrasted with frustration over a regulated market that artificially limits competition to maintain pricing, is unsurprisingly going to generate enormous public support and will not be regulated out of existence.

I guess taxis will just have to provide cheaper faster service to compete.

Screw the monopoly.

.

[guyser]

Wrong. Council asked for it. Two people of my acquaintance(both retirees looking for some easy extra money) asked for it. Like any prudent person s, all of those want to understand exactly what is involved. Uber refused.

Of course they refused. It is none of Edmonton council's business to see it.

As for your buddies, ask them if I can see (or yours for that matter) their insurance? Pound sand you say? Exactly. Now tell Edmonton Council the same.

Edmonton Council can set up the rules for gaining a licence which can (and does) happen with regular cabs, but Uber isnt a cab company (insofar as they call themselves). So since Uber doesnt apply for a licence in Edmonton, then Council has no right to see it.

If...IF council gets an application for cab service, then they have the right since they would be an additional named insured on it.

Translation: they have nothing, since they know the drivers effectively have no insurance. The excess of zero coverage is zero. Uber knows their liability insurance, if in fact it exists, is woerthless.

That may not be true at all.(worthless)

They would definitely have insurance since they operate down in the States too , so if not directly then vicariously they carry insurance.

I am not privy to the wordings, but suspect highly that it is a form follow type of policy, whereby the underlying limit has to be exhuasted before the pierce to the Excess insurance is made. But there are plenty cases where the wording has tripped up insurers who are then deemed to pay by the courts. (Both primary and excess insurers)

In the case of Uber, a simple car accident between two people (one an Uber driver with a paying passenger and no injuries) may never be discovered by the insurers. Afterall, the veh is unmarked, the passenger will likely remain quiet and/or leave,the Third Party likely has no idea whos in the other car, so realistically you (insurer) are left with nothing due to lack of proof.

No insurer has any real feasible way to know that the car they insure was used as an Uber at the time of the accident .Ergo....they pay.

I'm pleased Edmonton is insisting that Uber have coverage before running what is nothing more than another taxi service. Their claims of 'ridesharing' are worse than lies.

Pretty much agreed, but I doubt Uber wants any licencing restrictions such as a cabbie has. At least not until the whole industry is rejigged so they can make more money.

The first person killed or maimed in an uninsured Uber txi will sue everybody,

Just another day in the life of insurers.

and the muncipalities who sanction an unlicensed, uninsured public csriier by doing nothing will be first on the long list of defendants. Why go after some unemployed ahole who owns a wrecked 2006 Camry when there are fatter fish to fry? And fry they will.

If the municipality sanctions Uber, then they will demand a Certification of Insurance from all parties along with myriad of other legal requests and requirements.

How can they 'sanction' and at the same time be "doing nothing " ? They can't.

The injured party will sue the driver (the ahole w the Camry) the primary insurer, the excess insurer and likley try to tie in the Muni, but I dont have much confidence that the Muni will remain, theyll likley get off at discovery.

Or, you could do the sane and sensible thing and refuse to get into an uninsured vehicle.

You keep making these statements that are categorically not true.

A guy has insurance, he signs up with Uber, he still has insurance, he drives the kids to school, he still has insurance, he goes shopping or to work, he still has insurance, he drives home and his cell alerts to an Uber call.......the courts have not (as yet) been presented a case to determine if this violates the insurance for those Uber moments or not . Chances are things will get very sticky and it would be no surprise if they rule in favour of insurers and if they rule the excess insurance (from Uber) is there to pay it off .

Glad to see you're acknowledging that UBer passengers won't be covered.

You dont read very well obviously, Pretty sad really.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Guyser2