I'd imagine the same thing that happens to people who work for the average delivery food place (i.e. most don't mark it a work vehicle for insurance purposes either) and get into an accident.
I'd hardly call Uber immoral for this. It's up to each person to square up with their insurance company.
What's happening here is that Uber and your favorite pizza taxi are littering. They know that a fair share of their drivers do not carry a commercial liability policy.
When an Uber driver has an accident, the next thing that will happen is that their insurance denies the claim, and you have to claim against your uninsured motorist policy. Good luck to anyone who doesn't have such a policy because they don't own a car!
Hey, uninsured motorist rates just went up! I wish they didn't do that, and instead Uber fares and pizza prices went up because I don't use them. They have no business imposing externalities on me.
>Hey, uninsured motorist rates just went up! I wish they didn't do that, and instead Uber fares and pizza prices went up because I don't use them. They have no business imposing externalities on me.
Indeed. If someone drives in such a way as to be uninsured, shame on them.
Still not the company's fault for the individual's lack of responsibility.
>Still not the company's fault for the individual's lack of responsibility.
No. If they know, or more importantly from a legal liability standpoint SHOULD have known, then it's on them.
We haven't seen the test case that will decide the legal liability/insurability of P2P driver services, but it's clear that Uber and others are operating in a somewhat legal grey area and are not bothered by it. Indeed, you could argue that they are forcing the issue of regulation and insurability with their business model.
But I'd stop short of saying that they have NO responsibility. It's clear that Uber is hoping to delay any reckoning on that question until after their dominance is a fait accompli.
Their business model is predicated on externalising many of the costs forced on taxi drivers. Claiming they have no responsibility for crafting and operating a business model that's designed to socalise costs is horseshit.
Delivery guys are covered under general commercial liability policies of their employer. They don't need auto-specific coverage since driving is incidental to the primary business (food prep/sales) rather than the point of the business. In some states, the companies are required to take out additional insurance to cover their delivery drivers, but the policies aren't driver-specific. Either way, the driver is covered by the company, which is how it should be. (Auto insurance policies don't prohibit food delivery employment--only package delivery and passenger transport, as those raise very different liability issues.)
Uber's business is connecting drivers to passengers, and it takes a commission for doing so that is in some cases equal to or greater than what taxi companies collect for roughly the same service. The difference is that taxi companies are required to have insurance, and Uber arbitrages insurance costs and books it as "revenue."
I'd hardly call Uber immoral for this. It's up to each person to square up with their insurance company.