The defense begins with Uber’s original absurdity. On page three appears Uber’s classic—but nonetheless outrageous—legal stance: “Uber itself does not provide transportation services and is not a transportation carrier.” How can Uber openly state it doesn’t provide transportation services and, at the same time, claim to provide $1 million in insurance coverage for passengers? Don’t these two assertions obviously conflict? If Uber doesn’t provide transportation services, why would the company possess any insurance whatsoever for rides?
Let’s continue down the rabbit hole. Immediately following the above statement, Uber’s legal defense attempts to establish an identical lack of exposure for its wholly-owned subsidiary, Rasier. “Like Uber, Rasier does not operate any vehicles. Rather, ridesharing drivers provide their own vehicles to provide their services, which can be requested through the uberX car type option in the Uber app,” reads the document.
Of course the truth is something altogether different. Uber solicits ‘ridesharing’ drivers—who do not possess proper insurance—to make money for the company and then immediately cuts them loose if something bad happens. This is exactly why California Department of Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones stated that ‘ridesharing’ companies should bear the primary insurance burden when they encourage ‘ridesharing’ drivers to transport passengers for a profit.
Among the 22 legal defenses listed in Uber’s document, the second is, “The complaint is barred in whole or part because the Companies are not liable for the acts of others over whom it is not responsible.”
Not responsible, huh? Uber placed this ‘ridesharing’ driver on the road, electronically enabled him to make money for the company and then disavowed him and its own corporate responsibility the moment tragedy struck. No legal trick is going to change this truth.