New Act Regulates Transportation Network Companies
On Feb. 20, 2017, the legislature approved the Transportation Network Company Safety and Regulatory Act, to provide for the uniform regulation of digital network companies (such as Uber and Lyft).
February 21, 2018 at 05:00 PM
4 minute read
On Feb. 20, 2017, the legislature approved the Transportation Network Company Safety and Regulatory Act. The purpose of the act was to provide for the uniform regulation of digital network companies (such as Uber and Lyft), to protect the safety of their passengers and to require mandatory liability and UM/UIM coverage. P.L., 2017, c.26, effective May 1, 2017.
The act defines a “digital network” as any online technology that enables the prearrangement of rides between riders and drivers. A “transportation network company” is a business that uses a digital network to provide a prearranged ride between a driver and a rider. A “transportation network company driver” is a person who uses a personal vehicle to provide a prearranged rider to a rider. A “transportation network company rider” is a person who uses a digital network to obtain a prearranged ride from a driver.
A “personal vehicle” is a motor vehicle owned or leased by a driver that is used to provide prearranged rides. It is not a taxi, limousine, autobus, jitney, motor bus or any other vehicle for hire. It is not considered to be an automobile while a driver is providing a prearranged ride.
Thus, there are three parties to a digital network—the company, the driver and the rider. In practice, the driver logs into the network and waits for a call. The rider calls into the network and requests a ride. The company connects the rider with the driver in return for payment of a fee. The prearranged ride begins when the driver accepts a ride through a digital network, continues while the driver transports the rider, and ends when the rider departs the vehicle of the driver.
The act requires the transportation network company or the driver, or any combination of the two, to maintain primary automobile insurance coverage on the driver's personal vehicle under two circumstances: (1) while the driver is logged onto the digital network but is not providing a prearranged ride; and (2) while the driver is providing a prearranged ride. The insurance requirements are different for each.
While the driver is logged onto the network but is not providing a prearranged ride, the company or driver must maintain at least the following insurance coverage:
- Automobile liability insurance for death or bodily injury of $50,000 per person and $100,000 per accident, and $25,000 for property damage;
- Full PIP benefits; and
- UM/UIM coverage of $15,000 per person or $30,000 per accident.
While the driver is providing a prearranged ride, the company or driver shall maintain at least the following insurance coverage:
- Automobile liability insurance for death, bodily injury and property damage of $1,500,000.
- UM/UIM coverage of $1,500,000.
- No PIP coverage for passengers but medical payments coverage of $10,000 for the driver.
In addition, a transportation network company or driver cannot assert the limitation on lawsuit option (the verbal threshold) as a defense in any action for damages arising from a prearranged ride.
Finally, an automobile insurance company who insures a private passenger automobile may exclude coverage for any loss that occurs while the vehicle is logged on to a digital network or is providing a prearranged ride. On the other hand, there is nothing in the act that precludes an insurer from providing primary or excess coverage for a driver's personal vehicle.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFalling Back in Love With Certain Estate Planning Strategies in a Falling Interest Rate Environment
9 minute readThe Crucial Role Parenting Coordinators Play in Helping Former Spouses Co-Parent Effectively
Three's Company: Can a Nonsignatory to an Arbitration Agreement Compel or Be Compelled to Arbitrate?
8 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250