November 6, 2014
A New Ride-Sharing Service Raises Even More Questions
by Bill Wilson
BlaBlaCar shows how hard it is becoming to interpret policies.
The U.S. has seen an explosion in what is often referred to as the emerging “sharing economy” or “collaborative consumption.” In an increasingly connected society where most people have access to mobile communication devices, peer-to-peer services are springing up, based on mobile apps that consumers can use to access transportation services that historically have either not existed or were controlled by often highly regulated business or government entities.
One might argue that this is not a new concept, given that hitchhiking has been around since not long after the wheel was invented and was quite common in the 1950s and 1960s until it fell out of vogue as its inherent dangers gained more attention from the media and increasing numbers of consumers owned or had access to automobiles or mass transit.
But what we’re witnessing today is a relatively new phenomenon. Uber, Zimride, Lyft, ZipCar, Turo, GetAround, TaskRabbit, JollyWheels, RentMyCar, Zilok, CityCarShare, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla….
Which brings us to BlaBlaCar, the latest incarnation of car sharing. Founded in France in 2006, BlaBlaCar now claims to operate in about a dozen European countries and is exploring expanding into other countries, such as India and Brazil. BlaBlaCar bills itself as a “ride sharing” mechanism, as opposed to “car sharing.” That falls somewhere between fee-based hitchhiking and a somewhat irregular share-the-expense car pooling arrangement. Details on how the system operates can be found at the company’s web site.
BlaBlaCar currently does not operate in the U.S. There is some question as to whether it can be as successful in the U.S. as it claims to be in Europe. Owning and operating a vehicle in Europe is far more costly than it is in the U.S. There is also a perception that Europeans may be more trusting of, or accustomed to, riding with strangers than Americans are. In addition, there are social issues to consider in the U.S. For example, a BlaBlaCar driver can refuse to transport particular passengers. If such a driver is white and a declined passenger applicant is black, would there be civil rights issues that could be addressed by claims or suits for discrimination?
The question addressed by this article is, if BlaBlaCar were to begin operations in the U.S., would the personal auto insurance policies of its drivers cover this type of activity? According to the terms and conditions on BlaBlaCar’s web site and media articles about their service, most auto insurance in Europe covers this exposure because there is no “profit” involved. The passenger fee is referred to as a way to share the cost of a trip. The terms and conditions include a stringent hold-harmless provision and a liability cap to protect BlaBlaCar.
However, the company’s position on how personal auto insurance responds in Europe would be immaterial if it were to commence operations in the U.S. Many, if not most, personal auto policies in the U.S. may exclude BlaBlaCar activities regardless of whether a “profit” is sought or made. The decision could depend on the facts of each situation and the exclusion wording in the policy. The first question is whether there can be assurance that a driver is not making a profit. Second, the policy language may not consider profit to be an issue. For example, these are the two most common exclusions found in U.S. personal auto policies:
- We do not provide liability coverage for any “insured”…for that “insured’s” liability arising out of the ownership or operation of a vehicle while it is being used as a public or livery conveyance. This Exclusion (A.5.) does not apply to a share-the-expense car pool.
- We do not provide liability coverage for any person…for that person’s liability arising out of the ownership or operation of a vehicle while it is being used to carry persons or property for a fee. This exclusion (A.5.) does not apply to a share-the-expense car pool.
This language is taken from two different edition dates of the “ISO-standard” personal auto policy. In the case of use as a “public or livery conveyance,” ISO’s filing memorandum stated that the intent of this exclusion is to preclude coverage for vehicles available for “hire” to the general public for the transportation of people or cargo (e.g., taxis, sightseeing vans and package delivery services). The exclusion is not contingent on the profitability of the person or enterprise holding their vehicle out to the general public for hire.
In the case of a vehicle used to “carry persons or property for a fee,” there is no mention whatsoever of whether this fee generates a profit for the owner/driver. In one case, this exclusion was held to apply to someone who used his pickup truck to transport a friend’s son’s belongings to college in exchange for gas money.
However, both exclusions admittedly exempt a “share-the-expense car pool.” So what is meant by a “car pool”? One dictionary definition describes it as: “an arrangement between people to make a regular journey in a single vehicle, typically with each person taking turns to drive the others.”
Note the reference to “regular” and alternating as drivers. On the other hand, Wikipedia’s discussion of the term “carpool” implies a potentially broader concept that could include how BlaBlaCar operates. This muddies the water to the point that no blanket statement can be made about how U.S. personal auto policies might respond to claims arising from BlaBlaCar and similar ride-sharing services. If this were to become a significant exposure, one might expect U.S. insurers to define “car pool” in a way that precludes coverage for these services.
In the past year or two, we have seen various forms of “car sharing” exclusionary endorsements introduced by ISO and individual insurers, though many of them still do not fully address the “share-the-expense car pool” situation. The only conclusion we can reach at this point is that how a vehicle is being used and how that use fits with an insurance policy’s insuring agreements and exclusions are becoming much more important and more difficult to determine.
The insurance industry is not known for its innovation nor its ability to respond quickly to emerging social changes. The usual reaction is to exclude an unanticipated exposure until the industry can reasonably measure and predict the risk of loss. The growth of car- and ride-sharing (not to mention home-sharing) is something that will need to be closely monitored by the industry.