Waymo's Driverless Application Is Scrubbed of Insurance Details
"It's not at all clear to me why this was redacted," said John Simpson, the privacy and technology project director at Consumer Watchdog. "I do think the policy limits and information about coverage should be available to the public."
November 13, 2018 at 08:33 PM
4 minute read
California regulators are refusing to disclose details about the insurance Waymo has obtained to begin testing autonomous vehicles with no backup drivers on Bay Area roads.
In a copy of Waymo's testing program application, obtained by The Recorder through a public records request, the Department of Motor Vehicles redacted information about which companies have insured Waymo's fleet of 39 Chrysler Pacifica minivans and how much those policies will pay out for potential injuries to the public, property damage and workers' compensation claims.
The application does say insurance policies are valid through June 1, 2019. But a section labeled “additional information” about general liability and property coverage is shielded from public view.
A DMV spokesman could not immediately say why those portions of the 102-page report were redacted.
Emily Bisnett, a DMV lawyer, said the agency is not releasing information that Waymo, an Alphabet Inc. subsidiary, identified as trade secrets. A Waymo representative was not immediately reached for comment Tuesday afternoon.
“It's not at all clear to me why this was redacted,” said John Simpson, the privacy and technology project director at Consumer Watchdog. “I do think the policy limits and information about coverage should be available to the public.”
Based on the application, the DMV on Oct. 30 issued Waymo the first-ever permit to test truly driverless vehicles on public roads within the cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills and Sunnyvale. Company officials said the first passengers will be Waymo employees and public volunteer riders, like those in an Arizona program, will be added eventually.
The permit approval process requires Waymo and other autonomous vehicles companies to certify that they've met a list of requirements, including obtaining insurance or a bond equal to $5 million, notifying cities and counties of plans to test in their jurisdictions and training remote operators on the technology being tested. The application includes a page of 12 “acknowledgements” initialed by Shaun Stewart, Waymo's chief business development officer.
The regulations allow permit applicants to self-certify that they've met many of the state's safety requirements. Much of Waymo's application includes brochurelike material touting the benefits of driverless cars but not many specifics about how the technology will work.
“When you or I got a driver's license, your dad or your mom didn't go into the DMV and say 'I certify that I taught my son or daughter how to drive, give them a license,'” Simpson said. “That's akin to what's happening here with Waymo.”
When the DMV issued Waymo's license, the agency's director, Jean Shiomoto, said the state had been “working toward this milestone for several years, and we will continue to keep the public's safety in mind as this technology evolves.”
Waymo and all other permit-holders are required to publicly report any collisions and to submit an annual report detailing how many times the autonomous-driving system disengaged.
Two highly publicized crashes involving autonomous vehicles were quickly settled. The family of an Arizona woman struck and killed by an Uber vehicle while crossing a road at night settled its lawsuit just weeks after the accident. And in June, General Motors and a motorcyclist reached an out-of-court agreement stemming from a December 2017 crash involving an autonomous Chevy Bolt in San Francisco. Terms in both settlements were not disclosed.
“I think these companies are so litigation-averse that they will reveal details but only in confidential circumstances,” said James McPherson, a San Francisco attorney who founded the San Francisco consulting company SafeSelfDrive Inc.
|Read Waymo's driverless vehicle application here:
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 AllOpenAI Hires First Compliance Chief, Snagging Uber's Scott Schools
Faegre Drinker Picks Arizona for Next-Gen Design Lab
Trending Stories
- 1Companies' Dirty Little Secret: Those Privacy Opt-Out Requests Usually Aren't Honored
- 2Remembering Ted Olson
- 3Support Magistrates: Statutorily Significant
- 4Nelson Mullins, Greenberg Traurig, Jones Day Have Established Themselves As Biggest Outsiders in Atlanta Legal Market
- 5Immunity for Mental Health Care and Coverage for CBD: What's on the Pa. High Court's November Calendar
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