The word floodgate is used a lot. In thinking about its origins
it basically means the following: a barrier is opened and millions
of gallons of water come crashing out, smashing their way through
anything in its path. Imagine Godzilla stepping on an ant. In other
words, if you know the floodgate is going to open, make sure
you're not on the wrong side.
Considering I have now committed the cardinal sin of too much
punnery, I'll make it simple:
If strangers pay you to drive them places, you are operating a
If you operate a business with your car, your personal car
insurance will not cover you.
If you are an UberX driver: I can say, with a lot of confidence,
you are not paying for commercial insurance.
That 5 million dollar insurance policy that Uber waves around?
My understanding, which is obviously limited, is that it covers
Uber. Not the driver. Not the passenger. Uber. The passenger needs
to show Uber did something negligent and can then sue Uber.
Insurance protects Uber. The driver needs to show they are an
employee of Uber. Unfortunately, the entire concept of Uber is that
they are not a taxi company or service. The drivers ARE NOT
employees of Uber. Uber simply allows drivers to connect with
willing passengers. They are the public message boards posted
What this means in reality? If you're an UberX driver, pick
your pun of choice. But either way, unless you are both fireproof
and a marine animal, it isn't going to be pretty. No one should
be driving as an UberX driver without first informing their
insurance company. No one should be a passenger in an UberX vehicle
unless they have their own automobile insurance.
Uber, regular, are licensed taxi drivers who pay very high
insurance rates. UberX are not licensed taxi drivers.
Why consult with your insurance company? Take a moment to read
this article: http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2015/10/31/insurer-cancelling-policies-ofuberx-drivers.html.
The leaks have sprung. Anonymous tipster 1, non-taxi driving
taxi drivers aka UberX drivers, 0.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Automobile drivers, like fine wine, tend to get better with age. Older drivers can draw on a wealth of experience from their years on the road to assist them when faced by a variety of dangerous conditions.
Under B.C.'s former and current Limitation Act, the limitation period for a Plaintiff's claim can be extended on the basis of a Defendant having acknowledged in writing some liability for the cause of action.
The insurance industry will be interested in Ledcor Construction Ltd v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co because of principles the Supreme Court of Canada applied to the "faulty workmanship" exclusion in a Builders' Risk policy.
The recent Preliminary Issue decision in Walsh and Echelon (FSCO A15-007448, August 31, 2016) confirms that an economic loss does not need to be demonstrated in order to be entitled to attendant care benefits.
For the first time in BC, a Court has decided that an insured is entitled to special costs, rather than the lower tariff costs, solely because they were successful in a coverage action against their insurer.
Policyholders recently won a key victory at the Supreme Court of Canada in Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co. as the Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of a standard form...
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).