
Major Insurers to Strike Deal to Support Ride-Sharing - prostoalex
http://www.insurancejournal.com/blogs/right-street/2015/03/24/361971.htm
======
Animats
That makes sense. The insurance industry is willing to insure semi-commercial
drivers if the coverages, payouts, and rates work out. This doesn't mean
regular auto insurance will cover Uber drivers. It means buying a policy
that's more expensive than a regular auto policy, but cheaper and more
standardized than a taxi company would buy. GEICO is already offering such a
policy.

It's more of a standards issue than a liability issue. Commercial liability
policies are custom, complicated and negotiated. I've bought a few over the
years, including one for a DARPA Grand Challenge team. What's needed for the
Uber driver people is a standard policy that covers the rather uniform job
they do. The universe of Uber drivers is large enough to allow statistical
rating of the risk, so there's little need for an unknown-risk markup.

Of course, Uber is trying to dump the cost of this on their drivers. The
insurance industry isn't taking a position on who pays the premium, as long as
it gets paid.

~~~
icebraining
_Of course, Uber is trying to dump the cost of this on their drivers._

Loaded language aside, I don't see any other arrangement making sense than the
driver being the policyholder; after all, (s)he can be driving for any number
of companies, so whose insurance would pay if there was an accident during
"Period 1"? It would be a liability mess, and probably much worse for the
victims of the accident, who would have to wait out for that to be resolved.

It makes much more sense for drivers to demand a raise than to have the
companies cover the insurance, in my opinion.

~~~
Retric
Uber could easily just cover drivers while picking up or dropping off
customers.

Honestly, Uber would be well served by allowing people to be very part time
Uber drivers (<10h a week) as the market is both flexible and predictable. EX:
Having a restaurant worker dropping off the bar crowd just after their shift.
The fact they don't do this means people need to be Uber drivers most of the
time which means the average Uber driver makes less money / hour and Uber is
far less able to meet peak demand which lowers perceived quality.

IMO, the only reason why they did not do this is they were trying to get their
drivers to drive on their existing insurance which was never going to fly long
term. In the end having a supplier pay for insurance just means their charge
higher prices so Uber ends up paying for insurance either way.

PS: They would likely have been liable if any large insurance company decided
to sue them for this practice. IANAL but this seems like one of the few cases
of clear
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference)

~~~
icebraining
_Uber could easily just cover drivers while picking up or dropping off
customers._

They already do that; their insurance covers the driver since he accepted the
trip until its completion:
[http://blog.uber.com/ridesharinginsurance](http://blog.uber.com/ridesharinginsurance)

What they refused to pay was exactly during the "idle" phase - when the driver
had the app turned on, waiting for a trip.

~~~
Retric
The "idle' phase is part of picking people up. It's not like Uber drivers get
paged while their sleeping at home to come pick people up. There is a clear
'on the lock' vs 'off the clock' situation which Uber already tracks.

~~~
seanp2k2
Wouldn't the driver be covered under their personal insurance during the idle
phase anyway? They don't have anyone else in the car, so e.g. A passenger
would just be a normal passenger if they had one, not a paying client.

I don't see why they'd need some special insurance policy to cover the idle
phase. Do personal insurance coverages have some disclaimer about waiting
around with the intent to use your vehicle commercially?

~~~
Retric
Idol time is still commercial use. Consider if Starbucks suddenly decided to
pay barista's on a minute by minute basis based on if they were actively
making coffee. Clearly, that’s not going to let Starbucks get around minimum
wage laws.

From a risk standpoint which is what insurance cares about Idling Uber drivers
are going to spend way more time on the road than average so their much higher
risk.

------
amelius
Why doesn't uber implement the insurance themselves?

They have the statistics, so all they need is a mathematicIan to work it out.

