In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.
"The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
Mahatma Gandhi
Except in that case the owner's policy is still in force, regardless of who is driving, unless the vehicle is stolen. Otherwise the liability coverage of the owner's policy still has to respond - there is a statutory requirement, however it might be on a minimum statutory limits basis. The carrier for the excess auto policy provided by the rental car company may have arguments depending on its wording. Most I think would exclude coverage.
In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.
"The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
Mahatma Gandhi
The bananas can't argue to the exclusion of the other meaning in the example your describing if the car's insurance can exclude, Uber must accept, likewise if Uber can exclude, the owner's insurance can't exclude. Its one or the other. That's what the uninsured/underinsired people will argue and they will almost assuredly prevail and if not......then they pay as payor of last resort.
In response to some of the questions raised about Uber (and Lyft, since all of these apply to them as well), as someone who uses Uber, I have some answers. First, all of the cars are tracked through GPS. With the apps, you can see where they are at any given time (it's nice being able to say "It should be turning the corner... now."). As a rider, you are given the name, rating, and picture of the driver as soon as they accept the pickup. It seems to me that fraud would be a bit difficult. They do background checks, not only on the drivers, but the cars as well. It has to be newer than a certain year (I can't remember it off the top of my head, but there are definitely plenty of older cabs out there. Also, if you go off the planned route, Uber will contact the driver. You are also given a description of the vehicle as soon as they agree to the pickup. Also, unless your phone is unlocked, the driver can't get paid if they do something to their fare, as payment is done solely through the app. It raises red flags when the payments aren't made. With a cab, they can take your card off of you, swipe it, and say they dropped you off. When you get down to it, driving a taxi would be more of an enabling factor for a serial killer, even with the fingerprint scans and all, and it's around three times the cost of Uber or Lyft.
"For all sad words of tongue and pen, The saddest are these, 'It might have been'." John Greenleaf Whittier
"Our minds control our bodies. Our bodies control our enemies. Our enemies control jack shit by the time we're done with them." Stick
"For all sad words of tongue and pen, The saddest are these, 'It might have been'." John Greenleaf Whittier
"Our minds control our bodies. Our bodies control our enemies. Our enemies control jack shit by the time we're done with them." Stick
I think that the Fund will have to pay. Minimally neither policy is required to provide coverage for fraud which alone is enough to void coverage, absent the policy exclusions. Uber initially didn't provide any coverage at all, but after a few accidents where insurers denied coverage on the basis of driving for hire, they were forced to, otherwise no municipality would have allowed Uber to legally operate. Insurers don't provide insurance for a pig in a poke. Non-owned auto coverage is quite specific as to what it does and does not cover and if push comes to shove, the carriers would litigate for years before allowing their coverage to be broadened for social justice reasons.
In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.
"The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
Mahatma Gandhi
Insurers were not initially lining up to provide coverage. It's only because the wordings are tight and municipalities are allowing it, that they are even offering coverage. Furthermore non-owned auto doesn't cover the vehicle, just the driver. It's really a vicarious liability coverage. You are only vicariously liable for someone who has a legal connection to the organization that you insure.
In the context of Uber, loaning the vehicle to be used as a taxi under the ride-share driver's name is perpetrating a fraud. That person has not been vetted and may not be qualified. There is no master/servant connection.
In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.
"The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
Mahatma Gandhi