Mastering Uber, Lyft, and Ridesharing Law

2019 Edition LawPracticeCLE Unlimited All Courses. All Formats. All Year.

ABOUT US LawPracticeCLE is a national continuing legal education company designed to provide education on current, trending issues in the legal world to judges, attorneys, paralegals, and other interested business professionals. New to the playing eld, LawPracticeCLE is a major contender with its oerings of Live Webinars, On-Demand Videos, and In-person Seminars. LawPracticeCLE believes in quality education, exceptional customer service, long-lasting relationships, and networking beyond the classroom. We cater to the needs of three divisions within the legal realm: pre-law and law students, paralegals and other support sta, and attorneys.

WHY WORK WITH US? At LawPracticeCLE, we partner with experienced attorneys and legal professionals from all over the country to bring hot topics and current content that are relevant in legal practice. We are always looking to welcome dynamic and accomplished lawyers to share their knowledge!

As a LawPracticeCLE speaker, you receive a variety of bene ts. In addition to CLE teaching credit attorneys earn for presenting, our presenters also receive complimentary tuition on LawPracticeCLE’s entire library of webinars and self-study courses.

LawPracticeCLE also aords expert professors unparalleled exposure on a national stage in addition to being featured in our Speakers catalog with your name, headshot, biography, and link back to your personal website. Many of our courses accrue thousands of views, giving our speakers the chance to network with attorneys across the country. We also oer a host of ways for our team of speakers to promote their programs, including highlight clips, emails, and much more!

If you are interested in teaching for LawPracticeCLE, we want to hear from you! Please email our Directior of Operations at [email protected] with your information. Be advised when speaking for LawPracticeCLE, we require you to provide the bellow items related to your course:

1. A Course Description 2. 3-4 Learning Objectives or Key Topics 3. A Detailed Agenda 4. A Comprehensive PowerPoint Presentation

CONTACT US 11161 E State Road 70 #110-213 941-584-9833 www.lawpracticecle.com Lakewood Ranch, FL 34202 LAWPRACTICECLE UNLIMITED LawPracticeCLE Unlimited is an elite program allowing attorneys and legal professionals unlimited access to all Law- PracticeCLE live and on-demand courses for an entire year.

LawPracticeCLE provides twenty new continuing legal education courses each month that will not only appeal to your liking, but it will also meet your State Bar requirement.

Top attorneys and judges from all over the country partner with us to provide a wide variety of course topics from basic to advanced. Whether you are a paralegal or an experienced attorney, you can expect to grow from the wealth of knowledge our speakers provide. COURSE CATEGORIES A View From The Bench Estate Planning Paralegal Studies Animal Law Ethics, Bias, and Professionalism Personal Injury Law Bankruptcy Law Family Law Practice Management & Trial Prep Business Law Federal Law Real Estate Law Cannabis Law Food and Beverage Law Religious Law Construction Law Gun Law Social Security Law Criminal Law Health Law Specialized Topics Cybersecurity Law Immigration Law Tax Law Education Law Intellectual Property Law Technology Law Employment Law Insurance Law Transportation Law Entertainment Law Nonpro t Law Tribal Law More Coming Soon ... ACCREDITATION LawPracticeCLE will seek approval of any CLE program where the registering attorney is primarily licensed and a single alternate state. The application is submitted at the time an attorney registers for a course, therefore approval may not be received at the time of broadcasting. In the event a course is denied credit, a full refund or credit for another Law- PracticeCLE course will be provided.

LawPracticeCLE does not seek approval in Illinois or Virginia, however the necessary documentation to seek CLE credit in such states will be provided to the registrant upon request. ADVERTISING WITH LAWPRACTICECLE At LawPracticeCLE, we not only believe in quality education, but providing as many tools as possible to increase success. LawPracticeCLE has several advertising options to meet your needs. For advertising and co-sponsorship information, please contact the Director of Operations, Jennifer L. Hamm, [email protected].

CHECK US OUT ON SOCIAL MEDIA Facebook: www.facebook.com/LawPracticeCLE lnstagram: www.instagram.com/lawpracticecle

Linkedln: www.linkedin.com/company/lawpracticecle Twitter: www.twitter.com/LawPracticeCLE LITIGATIONLITIGATION TRANSACTIONAL ESTATE/PROBATE

Ridesharing Accident Cases: Liability and Insurance Coverage

Zachary B. Pyers Reminger Co., L.P.A. 200 Civic Center Drive, Suite 800 Columbus, OH 43215 (614) 228-1311 [email protected]

• A company that provides transportation services using digital technologies that connect passengers to drivers who use their personal vehicles to provide prearranged rides • Also referred to as a Transportation Network Companies

• How many people use Uber? – 75 Million Uber riders • Number of US Adults that are projected to use Uber in 2018? – 48 Million • How many Uber drivers are there? – 3 Million

• Amount that Uber drivers earned in tips in the feature’s first year – $600 Million • How many Uber trips have been taken – 10 Billion Rides • Number of Cities Uber is in – 600

• Average number of daily Uber trips – 15 Million • Number of Countries Uber is in – 65 Countries • Percentage of US Andriod devices with Uber App installed – 21%

• Uber’s share of US ride hailing market – ~85% • Number of Uber Rides in 2017 – 4 Billion • Number of Restaurants that participate in UberEATS – 100,000

• Ridesharing was a new and novel innovation as recently as a few years ago.

• As the number of ridesharing drivers increases the number of crashes, and the number of lawsuits related to ridesharing will increase.

• There are generally 7 Policy areas: – Permits and fees – Insurance and financial responsibility – Driver and vehicle requirements – Operational requirements – Passenger protections – Data reporting – Regulatory and rule-making authority

• Requirements for: – Insurance (35 states) – Minimum driver age, license, registration (30 states) – Background check (30 states) – Rates and fares disclosure (27 states)

• Drivers’ employment status (8 states) – Ohio and Indiana write drivers are not employees – Other states provide criteria for what makes an “employee” or leave open to rule-making • Alaska found Uber in violation of workers compensation act; Uber suspended service

• Background check (30 states) – No state requires fingerprint-based background checks, though some cities do – Kansas and Nevada enacted and subsequently removed fingerprint-based background checks

• Ride-sharing/pooling/splitting • Carpooling • Food delivery • Taxi e-hailing • Rides for women and kids • Non-emergency medical trips • Trip-chaining, flat fares, unlimited pass

• Standard negligence claims

• Theories specific to ridesharing drivers – Distracted driving – Exhaustion – Unsafe driving to increase the number of fares taken during a shift.

• The relationship between the rideshare driver and ridesharing company has a significant impact on the allocation of liability

• Despite many available legal theories, the legal status between drivers and coordinators is still somewhat murky

AKRON CINCINNATI CLEVELAND COLUMBUS SANDUSKY TOLEDO YOUNGSTOWN INDIANAPOLIS FT. WAYNE NORTHWEST INDIANA EVANSVILLE FT. MITCHELL LEXINGTON LOUISVILLE LITIGATIONLITIGATION TRANSACTIONAL ESTATE/PROBATE Relationship Between Ridesharing Drivers and Ridesharing Companies • The question of whether a rideshare driver is an employee or independent contractors has been litigated in the employment law context, but it is less frequently litigated in tort cases

• Two reasons for this: – Accidents involving third-parties have settled quickly – To use the ridesharing App, the ride must agree to an arbitration provision.

AKRON CINCINNATI CLEVELAND COLUMBUS SANDUSKY TOLEDO YOUNGSTOWN INDIANAPOLIS FT. WAYNE NORTHWEST INDIANA EVANSVILLE FT. MITCHELL LEXINGTON LOUISVILLE LITIGATIONLITIGATION TRANSACTIONAL ESTATE/PROBATE Relationship Between Ridesharing Drivers and Ridesharing Companies • Ridesharing companies typically try to distance themselves from the transportation aspect of their companies • These companies argue they are “technology companies” not transportation services. – “More like a phonebook than a taxi service.” • Courts have not received these arguments favorably

AKRON CINCINNATI CLEVELAND COLUMBUS SANDUSKY TOLEDO YOUNGSTOWN INDIANAPOLIS FT. WAYNE NORTHWEST INDIANA EVANSVILLE FT. MITCHELL LEXINGTON LOUISVILLE LITIGATIONLITIGATION TRANSACTIONAL ESTATE/PROBATE Vicarious Liability for Injuries Caused by Ridesharing Drivers • The Control Factors Test: Used to determine if a worker is an employee of independent contractor. 1. The skill required to complete the task assigned 2. Which party provided the tools to complete the task 3. Where is the work done 4. How long the relationship between the parties will continue 5. Which party has discretion over when and how long to work 6. Can the hiring party assign additional tasks 7. Method used for payment 8. Other assistance provided to the worked by the hiring party 9. Is the task to be accomplished part of the hiring party’s regular business 10. Is the hiring party a company or business, as opposed to an individual 11. Does the worker receive benefits 12. Tax implications related to the worker

AKRON CINCINNATI CLEVELAND COLUMBUS SANDUSKY TOLEDO YOUNGSTOWN INDIANAPOLIS FT. WAYNE NORTHWEST INDIANA EVANSVILLE FT. MITCHELL LEXINGTON LOUISVILLE LITIGATIONLITIGATION TRANSACTIONAL ESTATE/PROBATE Vicarious Liability for Injuries Caused by Ridesharing Drivers • Courts that have considered these factors as it relates to the ridesharing context have focused on the fact that these companies depend entirely on their drivers for their business model to succeed. • Additionally, the fact that ridesharing companies have a policy of suspending drivers if they decline too many fares supports the notion that drivers’ freedom over when and how much they work is not unrestrained. • However, there is a lack of uniformity in how these factors are applied. Thus, it is unclear whether these factors will be determinative in every case.

AKRON CINCINNATI CLEVELAND COLUMBUS SANDUSKY TOLEDO YOUNGSTOWN INDIANAPOLIS FT. WAYNE NORTHWEST INDIANA EVANSVILLE FT. MITCHELL LEXINGTON LOUISVILLE LITIGATIONLITIGATION TRANSACTIONAL ESTATE/PROBATE Additional Issues Related Establishing to Vicarious Liability • If the theory of Respondeat Superior is used, there is a issue related to when the driver is in the course and scope of her employment. – Period 1: The ridesharing app is open, but the driver does not have a fare. – Period 2: Driver has matched with a passenger and is on the way to pick them up . – Period 3: Driver is taking the passenger to their destination. There is a question whether the driver is in the course and scope of their work during period 1, and to some extent period 2, or only period 3.

AKRON CINCINNATI CLEVELAND COLUMBUS SANDUSKY TOLEDO YOUNGSTOWN INDIANAPOLIS FT. WAYNE NORTHWEST INDIANA EVANSVILLE FT. MITCHELL LEXINGTON LOUISVILLE LITIGATIONLITIGATION TRANSACTIONAL ESTATE/PROBATE Imposing Liability Directly on Ridesharing Companies • Direct liability claims for negligent hiring and retention. – Under this theory, a plaintiff could hold the ridesharing company directly liable for injuries caused by a driver who was so unfit it was negligent to hire them. • The background check process for drivers is somewhat limited. (does not include finger printing, is limited in years, etc.)

AKRON CINCINNATI CLEVELAND COLUMBUS SANDUSKY TOLEDO YOUNGSTOWN INDIANAPOLIS FT. WAYNE NORTHWEST INDIANA EVANSVILLE FT. MITCHELL LEXINGTON LOUISVILLE LITIGATIONLITIGATION TRANSACTIONAL ESTATE/PROBATE Imposing Liability Directly on Ridesharing Companies • Negligent Hiring Claims based on criminal acts by Ridesharing Drivers • Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc. – Court held that the Plaintiffs relied on Uber’s claims of Driver Safety when plaintiffs accepted ride from drivers who sexually assaulted the plaintiffs. • Doe v. Uber – Companies have resisted more expansive background checks. More detailed background checks would be more expensive and would reduce the pool of eligible drivers.

AKRON CINCINNATI CLEVELAND COLUMBUS SANDUSKY TOLEDO YOUNGSTOWN INDIANAPOLIS FT. WAYNE NORTHWEST INDIANA EVANSVILLE FT. MITCHELL LEXINGTON LOUISVILLE LITIGATIONLITIGATION TRANSACTIONAL ESTATE/PROBATE Imposing Liability Directly on Ridesharing Companies • U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts Case (2019) • Gunter Willim et al. v. Uber Technologies Inc. et al. – An Illinois state judge kept Uber Technologies Inc. in a lawsuit seeking to hold it liable for a driver who struck a man and caused him to lose a leg, even though the driver was not accepting rides at the time.

AKRON CINCINNATI CLEVELAND COLUMBUS SANDUSKY TOLEDO YOUNGSTOWN INDIANAPOLIS FT. WAYNE NORTHWEST INDIANA EVANSVILLE FT. MITCHELL LEXINGTON LOUISVILLE LITIGATIONLITIGATION TRANSACTIONAL ESTATE/PROBATE Imposing Liability Directly on Ridesharing Companies – Meyer v. Uber Techs, Inc. • Issue concerning Uber’s arbitration agreement with consumer and whether a “click” was enough to accept.

AKRON CINCINNATI CLEVELAND COLUMBUS SANDUSKY TOLEDO YOUNGSTOWN INDIANAPOLIS FT. WAYNE NORTHWEST INDIANA EVANSVILLE FT. MITCHELL LEXINGTON LOUISVILLE LITIGATIONLITIGATION TRANSACTIONAL ESTATE/PROBATE Imposing Liability Directly on Ridesharing Companies • Negligent hiring, retention, or training claims based on bad driving, mechanical issues, or intoxicated driving – The vehicle eligibility requirements of most ridesharing companies are very minimal. – Most ridesharing companies do not require drivers to show any proficiency behind the wheel. – There is some indication that ridesharing companies have struggled to combat intoxicated drivers.

• Some have argued that ridesharing companies qualify as a common carrier. – A Common carrier is a person or company that transports goods or passengers on regular route or at set rates – Common carriers are subject to a heightened standard for protecting passengers and cannot delegate this duty to an independent contractor – Note, some states, such as Florida, have passed legislation regulating ridesharing companies that explicitly prevents a ridesharing company from being held to be a common carrier.

• An important point as it relates to insurance and ridesharing is the different “periods.” 1. When the driver has the app open but hasn’t been matched with a rider. 2. A driver has matched with a rider and is on the way to their location. 3. Rider is in the vehicle on the way to a destionation.

• Most major ridesharing companies provide policies that cover passengers, drivers, and third parties during periods 2 and 3. • During period 1, drivers a generally expected to provide their own coverage. – Note, most companies now extend the policy to third-parties injured by a driver during period 1.

• A frequent coverage gap occurs with respect to period 1. • Most car insurance policy now have exclusions in their policies when a driver uses their vehicle for ridesharing. • For third-parties, and personal insurers, establishing that a driver was using a ridesharing app and was in period 1 can sometimes be difficult.

• To fill this potential coverage gap, some insurance companies have started offering ridesharing coverage. • This coverage is only available in some states and is sometimes specific to certain ridesharing companies. – This can create problems if a driver uses more than one platform for ridesharing.

• What does Uber say? – While waiting for a ride request • While you’re online with Uber and before you accept a request, you are insured for your liability to a third party if you are in an accident when you’re at fault. A third party is someone other than yourself. Coverage includes your liability to pay another person’s medical bills or to pay for property damage (like a damaged fence). • Coverage Limits vary by state, but are at least: – $50,000 per person/$100,000 per accident for bodily injury – $25,000 per accident for property damage • If you are not at fault, you may make a claim against their insurance. Your personal insurance policy may also cover you in this situation. Please check your personal coverage for more information.

• What does Uber say? – On your way to pick up a rider and during a trip • While you drive to pick up a rider after accepting a request and during an Uber trip, you are insured for three things in case of a covered accident: • 1. Third party liability coverage Insures bodily injuries or damages you’ve caused to your riders, people in other vehicles, pedestrians, or property. Coverage limits vary by state but are at least $1,000,000. • 2. Uninsured or underinsured motorist bodily injury coverage This insurance covers you and anyone else in your vehicle in case of an accident where another driver is at fault, but does not have sufficient insurance. This also covers hit and run accidents where the at-fault driver cannot be identified. Coverage limits vary by state, but are at least $250,000 per accident. • 3. Contingent collision and comprehensive coverage As long as you maintain comprehensive and collision coverage on your personal auto insurance, Uber’s insurance will kick in and provide physical damage coverage for your car up to its actual cash value, regardless of who is at fault. – There is a $1,000 deductible that you must pay first before this coverage applies.

• What does Uber say? – When driving your car for personal use • Since you are not driving on the Uber platform during this period, you are not covered by the insurance Uber maintains for driver-partners. Any accidents that occur in your car while not driving on the Uber platform are covered by the personal auto insurance coverage that you purchase on your own.

• Personal Auto Policies may exclude drivers who are driving for ride sharing apps. • Drivers should consider getting a Ride Sharing Policy through their regular auto insurer – These are usually hybrid policies or additional endorsements on a traditional policy

• Examples of ride sharing endorsements on a traditional policy – Allstate • $15 to $20 per year. – Erie Insurance • $9 to $15 per month. – Mercury Insurance • Starting at about $6 per month. – Safeco • Likely under $10 per month. – State Farm • 15% - 20% of premium.

• Ethical Responsibilities Are The Highest Priority.

• Few Ethical Rules Specifically Deal With Ride Sharing Cases.

• However, The Standard Set Of Ethics Can Apply In Some Unique Situations When Ride Sharing Cases Are Addressed.