- Emergency Consultation Services
- Risk Management Services
- Who We Are
- Our People
- What We Do
- Why We Are Different
- What’s New
- Where We Are
By: Daniel Walsh
As recently noted by FMG’s Connor Bateman, Courts across the country are now reexamining coverage issues stemming from auto insurance policies held by drivers working with Transportation Network Companies (“TNCs”) such as Lyft and Uber.
In Dynamex Operations W. v. Superior Court, 2018 Cal. LEXIS 3152, the California Supreme Court set forth a refined and more inclusive standard on the classification of employees vs. independent contractors in the “gig economy” commonly associated with Lyft and Uber but also extending to various delivery services. An underappreciated side effect of this decision is the effect upon coverage issues that have been litigated for years throughout California courts. With a robust gig economy in California, the Courts have seen a high number of general liability cases that have turned upon the Trial Court’s interpretation of employee vs independent contractor status. This, in turn, has created a high volume of declaratory relief lawsuits centered upon liability coverage for the actions of a gig economy participant, as most insurance policies grant coverage to an employee but deny it to an independent contractor. With the Court clarifying that distinction in Dynamex, California insurance coverage opinions regarding personal injury liability in the gig economy will now require a new focus and analysis.
If you have any questions or would like more information please contact Daniel Walsh at email@example.com.