On the evening of Feb. 20, 2016, Uber driver Jason Brian Dalton spent five hours traversing the city of Kalamazoo, MI, with a semiautomatic handgun in the inside pocket of his jacket. Over the course of the evening, he randomly targeted and killed six innocent people and injured two others. In between, he picked up fares, his passengers oblivious to the carnage inflicted by their driver.
This tragic event raised a pointed question: Does the convenience of the sharing economy come at a safety cost?
There isn't an easy answer, but it's no stretch to assume that it might, especially for organizers of meetings and events, who increasingly rely on ridesharing services like Uber and Lyft to transport their attendees to and from hotels, convention centers, and elsewhere.
"Uber is the number one most-talked-about, most-utilized transportation company in the world because it has addressed an important need in the marketplace: Nobody has time anymore, and it saves time. What it hasn't addressed, however, is the question of liability," explains Cosimo Bruzzese, vice president of business development at New York-based destination management company Briggs Inc. "If you're thinking about using Uber as a meeting planner, you have to ask yourself: From a risk assessment standpoint, have I spoken to my attorneys to determine who would be liable if something goes wrong?"
Because the sharing economy is still so young, your attorneys might very well say, "I don't know," according to Ben Tesdahl, Esq., an attorney concentrating in nonprofit, corporate, tax, and contract law, including meetings and convention law. "Things like Uber are such a relatively recent phenomenon that the regulations really haven't been decided yet," says Tesdahl, who is with the Washington, DC, law firm of Powers, Pyles, Sutter & Verville, P.C. "It's kind of in chaos right now."
Ultimately, whether to embrace ridesharing because of the convenience -- and in spite of the chaos -- is a decision that planners must make on a case-by-case basis according to their groups' unique needs and concerns.
"There's no question that [ridesharing] has benefits both for individuals and groups," Bruzzese says. "But you have to be aware of both the pros and the cons."
The following basic information can help you determine which is more powerful: the risks or the rewards?
The Insurance Question
The first thing meeting professionals should know about Uber and Lyft is that drivers are, in fact, insured -- but with a few caveats.
When drivers are using their vehicles for personal use, Uber and Lyft take no responsibility for incidents, so drivers must be covered by their own personal insurance policies. However, when drivers are either in route to pick up passengers or carrying passengers, they are covered by the ridesharing company's corporate insurance policy, which in the case of Uber offers liability coverage up to $1 million per incident for bodily injury or property damage to passengers or any other third parties, such as pedestrians, other vehicles, buildings, etc., plus bodily injury caused by uninsured and underinsured motorists up to $1 million per incident.
A gray area exists in the period of time that a driver is on the clock but in between fares. During that time, ridesharing companies offer "contingent" insurance, which only kicks in if a driver's personal insurer refuses to cover an incident.
Unfortunately for drivers, most insurance companies have clauses in their policies that forbid customers from driving "for hire." In some cases, therefore, insurance companies are dropping customers and/or refusing to pay claims, leaving drivers without the personal insurance they need when they're not covered by Uber's or Lyft's corporate policy. To fill this gap, some companies are now testing special policies for ridesharing drivers, but options are scant.
So Are You Liable?
While there may be gaps in coverage for drivers, the fact that drivers are covered by ridesharing companies' corporate policies while they have passengers should indemnify meeting organizers for liability if something were to happen to an attendee during a ride. But it might not, according to Bruzzese, who says an attendee who's injured during an Uber or Lyft ride still might be able to sue the meeting organizer if it arranged or recommended the ride.
That's because Uber doesn't consider itself to be a transportation company; instead, it argues, it's a technology provider.
"Uber is not liable at all. You can't sue them because they don't actually own the vehicle. They're just a software company," Bruzzese says. "So automatically you as a corporate company are going to become a target if an attendee decides to sue."
Echoes Tesdahl, "Let's say you recommend Uber to your attendees and someone gets injured taking it. It is possible for people or organizations to be sued for negligence in recommending a certain transportation option from many options that are available, the theory being that the meeting attendee relied on your recommendation and expertise; they thought you had screened the options carefully and determined that Uber was the best and safest option, and it turns out you hadn't. It's a difficult case to prove, but it's possible."
What if a planner actually arranges rides for attendees, instead of merely recommending them?
"Technically, anybody can sue anybody for anything, even if it's frivolous. But if you had six executives in town for a meeting and you hired six Uber drivers to take them across town to their hotel? I would be surprised if you would be held liable if something happened," Tesdahl continues. "It would be no different than hailing six taxis at random. How are you supposed to be responsible for that? It would be hard to prove any direct carelessness on your part, so I think you'd be reasonably safe."
Better Safe Than Sorry
On the one hand, Uber and Lyft are convenient, affordable, and insured. On the other hand, injured attendees could in theory bring suit against a meeting organizer if something happened. So what's a conflicted planner to do? That depends on your company's risk tolerance. Until lawmakers tie up the many regulatory loose ends, however, Tesdahl recommends the old adage: better safe than sorry.
"If you're going to use a company like Uber, avoid making claims on your meeting website like, 'Use Uber because it's better and safer than a taxi.' You don't know that, and you can't back that up," he says. "Also, I would include a disclaimer that makes it clear you haven't thoroughly vetted the company and aren't endorsing it; it's just an option."
As for Briggs, its attorneys have erred on the side of caution, advising the company not to offer Uber and Lyft to its customers. "Safety and liability are our number one concern," Bruzzese concludes. "If there's any question about safety or liability, we don't offer it as a service."