![]() ![]() Under the second reading, the insurance-company favoring position is that Waze is not a carpool (the name assigned by Waze being irrelevant), it is simply a novel form of public conveyance. The purpose of that final sentence is to say explicitly that carpools are not "public conveyances", if you were in doubt. (Technically, this the the difference between a restrictive and a non-restrictive modifier, where the former describes a subset of public conveyances). The second reading is the most natural and the first reading is rather contorted reasoning. It is bedrock certain that livery and public conveyance vehicles are not covered. This exclusion (B.2.) does not apply to aĬould be read as meaning "this exclusion does not apply to a public conveyance which is also a share-the-expense car pool or it could mean "public conveyances are not covered share-the-expense car pools are not 'public conveyances'". While "occupying" "your covered auto" when it is being used as a The contract clause is potentially open to two interpretations. So far, insurance companies haven't announced a Waze exclusion. ![]() It is most likely that Waze Carpool would not be considered a ridesharing enterprise, but an insurance company might decide to make law with a test case. The rationale for the car-pool exclusion is in part that such use does not increase the insurance companies exposure due to extra driving or driving in worse conditions. The rationale for non-coverage of ride-for-hire is that the practice significantly increases the insurance company's risk, hence the special rate for Lyft drivers. Waze is different in that the driver was probably going that way anyway, and they aren't doing it for profit. But obviously, Waze Carpool is not exactly the same as Lyft: the question is whether the similarity is crucial to the rational behind the exclusion. Waze Carpool is more like a public conveyance, where the vehicle is used indiscriminately to transport the public, not limited to certain persons or occasions, so might be excluded on those grounds. It is the same as Lyft / Uber in that you contact a central facility ad libitum to get a ride from a semi-random driver. It is hard to say, because Waze Carpool has some of the elements of a "for hire" arrangement while generally being like a conventional car pool. ![]() This exclusion (1.) does not apply to a share-the-expense car pool. Loss to "your covered auto" or any "non-owned auto" which occurs while it is being used as a public or livery conveyance.PART D - COVERAGE FOR DAMAGE TO YOUR AUTO Exclusions This exclusion (B.2.) does not apply to a share-the-expense car pool. While "occupying" "your covered auto" when it is being used as a public or livery conveyance.We do not provide Uninsured Motorists Coverage for "bodily injury" sustained by any "insured:" PART C - UNINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE EXCLUSIONSī. This exclusion (2.) does not apply to a share-the-expense car pool. Sustained while "occupying" "your covered auto" when it is being used as a public or livery conveyance.We do not provide Medical Payments Coverage for any "insured" for "bodily injury:" PART B - MEDICAL PAYMENTS COVERAGE Exclusions Waze Carpool considers itself “…a fresh way to share the road and the cost of commuting”, emphasizing that it's a way to “ Share the cost of gas and tolls”… but do insurance companies agree? Several Reddit threads ( /r/wazecarpool, /r/Insurance) have put forth the idea that it'd qualify, but nobody's actually confirmed it. But has Waze Carpool per se been tried, and, if so, found lacking in this? I know there's a broad precedent already in-place for what this sort of carpool definition may encompass. the policy is conventional in that it does cover accidents that occur during so-called "share-the-expense" carpooling.) Every instance of the word "livery" in my insurance policy's exceptions list is followed by an exemption for "share-the-expense" car pools (i.e. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |