Bonilla Authors Legislation to Protect Drivers, Passengers, and the Public While Using Ride Sharing Services

April 28, 2014 · 10 comments

As the sharing economy expands and more Californians are getting rides from transportation network companies (TNC) like Uber, Lyft, or Sidecar, new rules are needed to protect passengers, drivers, and the public.

“I have introduced AB 2293 to clarify existing insurance laws related to ride sharing service activities while supporting new business advancements,” said Assemblywoman Bonilla. “California is a technology leader and as new ideas are developed and brought into the marketplace, we need to make sure rules are in place to notify and protect those using new services.”

The TNC business model allows drivers to use their personal vehicles to pick up and drive riders, for a fee, using a smart phone app. This model requires a driver to use their personal vehicle for commercial activity. The personal automobile insurance policy is not designed or intended to be used for commercial activities and contains a specific exclusion for livery activities.

“As this new transportation option has grown and expanded, gaps in insurance coverage have been identified,” said Bonilla. “My legislation will define when commercial activity begins and ends along with providing important disclosures to TNC drivers which will ensure that all parties are aware of the insurance policy coverage which is in place.”

AB 2293 will do four things:

  1. Require TNCs to disclose to drivers upfront that their personal insurance may not apply when engaging in commercial TNC activities.
  2. Define in statute that TNC activities begin once the “app” is turned on and the TNC services end when the “app” is turned off.
  3. AB 2293 clarifies that the TNC business company insurance is the primary insurance coverage.
  4. Require TNCs’ liability insurance to defend their drivers when the driver has a claim or accident.

AB 2293 will be heard in the Assembly Utilities and Commerce later today.

1 Bob the Repaian April 28, 2014 at 9:05 AM

Busy , busy, busy.
Look how many bills I can introduce!!! It must be election time!

2 Come on... April 28, 2014 at 9:17 AM

Why aren’t these companies required from the
start to meet the same requirements as a cab
company, or bus company. Friggin lawyers creating
technical problems to keep themselves earning.
I call B S .

3 BagsFlyFree April 28, 2014 at 12:19 PM

While you know this legislation got funded by insurance companies and existing taxi lobbyists, this is a good time to firm up minimum standards for these new taxi replacement services.

BFF Out!

4 anon April 28, 2014 at 12:47 PM

#2 because cab companies require medallions and buses require all sorts of permits from the cities. The new technologies allow for far greater flexibility in livery and rideshare services, thus cutting the costs for consumers and making it possible for many people to earn their sustenance in a down economy.

This bill seems fairly benign, though it seems such wording could easily be in any insurance contract without having to get the government involved. What usually happens is that legislatures move to protect existing livery and cab companies by outlawing the newer services. Bonilla may be receiving funding from the other side in this; her district doesn’t cover an area that has a lot of cab services with significant money at stake.

5 Elwood April 28, 2014 at 2:05 PM

Always good to hear from Fatty Bonilla with another bill.

“Look at me! See how hard I’m working for you! See me introduce yet another asinine bill!”

6 Michelle April 28, 2014 at 2:15 PM

I’m actually with Come on… on this. Why aren’t the people who use that app designated as cabs or public transports. This is a “make sense” regulation.

7 Walnut Creek Resident April 28, 2014 at 2:51 PM

Good idea -good to protect public no matter what the political implications are.

8 RunDogRun April 28, 2014 at 7:12 PM

This woman doesn’t have a
clue. How did she get elected?

9 Stella April 28, 2014 at 8:03 PM

Ride sharing? Taxes have to be paid. The bill in itself is outrageous, why do we have to put up with more crap legislation?

10 cyclist April 29, 2014 at 8:28 AM

Stop this stupid legislation!

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: