CLOSE X
RSS Feed LinkedIn Instagram Twitter Facebook
Search:
FMG Law Blog Line

Posts Tagged ‘Lyft’

Under Attack Again: California Attorney General Announces Misclassification Lawsuit Against Uber and Lyft

Posted on: May 7th, 2020

By: Ryan Greenspan

On May 5, 2020, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced that the State of California will be suing Uber and Lyft for misclassifying their drivers as independent contractors.  The precise details of the suit are not presently known, but it is being reported that Uber and Lyft are being accused of violating Assembly Bill 5, went into effect on January 1, 2020 and dramatically changed the legal requirements in California to qualify as an independent contractor.

In Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court established a 3-factor test employers must satisfy to prove that a worker is properly classified as an independent contractor.  Employers must prove the following:

1) that the worker has freedom from control over how to perform the services they provide;

2) that the services provided are outside the business’s normal variety; and

3) that the worker is engaged in an independently established role. 

Assembly Bill 5 codified the Dynamex decision while carving out limited exceptions.  Assembly Bill 5 was expected to significantly impact several of the app-based companies based in California, particularly those commonly known as being part of the “gig economy.”  Companies such as Uber and Lyft have always classified their drivers as independent contractors, which afforded workers the opportunity to set their own hours and work for multiple companies, but also meant those workers did not receive various benefits afforded to employees, such as healthcare, workers’ compensation, expense reimbursements, and a guarantee that they would be paid at least the minimum wage. 

Enforcement litigation does not come as a surprise.  Shortly after Assembly Bill 5 went into effect, Uber and Lyft announced that they would refuse to reclassify their drivers as employees.  In February 2020, a federal judge denied a request from Uber and food delivery company Postmates for a preliminary injunction that would have exempted them from the new law.

Prior to Assembly Bill 5 going into effect, Uber and Lyft assisted in the funding of a statewide ballot measure known as the Protect App-Based Drivers & Services Act.  The Act is expected to be voted upon in the November 2020 election.  If passed, companies such as Uber and Lyft would continue to be permitted to classify their drivers as independent contractors while providing several benefits to their workers, such as a guarantee of at least 120% of the minimum wage, 30 cents per mile for expenses, and a healthcare stipend. 

Uber and Lyft have largely been able to defend or settle a series of class action lawsuits over the issue of worker classification.  However, an enforcement lawsuit from the state presents a unique challenge to the app-based companies because there is less opportunity to reach a settlement than there is with a private plaintiffs’ attorney.

While this case is in its infancy, the outcome will have a tremendous impact on the approximately 500,000 drivers working for Uber and Lyft in California, as well as thousands more who work for companies such as Doordash. If you have any questions or would like more information on this lawsuit or Assembly Bill 5, please contact Ryan Greenspan at [email protected].                        

Independent Contractor vs Employee Status in the Gig Economy

Posted on: May 31st, 2018

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 protected].

Need a Lyft? Georgia Court of Appeals Decision Raises Coverage Questions for Ridesharing Services and Their Drivers

Posted on: February 19th, 2018

By: Connor M. Bateman

Most personal automobile insurance policies exclude coverage for damages that result from the ownership or operation of a vehicle used as a “public or livery conveyance.” Although typically undefined in the policy, this phrase has generally been understood to encompass vehicles that are “used indiscriminately in conveying the public, rather than being limited to certain persons and particular occasions or governed by special terms.”

The Georgia Court of Appeals recently weighed in on the scope of this exclusion in Haulers Insurance Co. v. Davenport.  In Davenport, the plaintiff sustained injuries in a car accident, sued the other driver, and served his uninsured motorist carrier (Haulers) with a copy of the complaint. At the time of the collision, the plaintiff was giving a ride to a female friend who would occasionally pay the plaintiff to drive her into town. There was no evidence, however, that the plaintiff ever offered paid rides to the general public. The Court of Appeals rejected Haulers’ argument that the policy’s public or livery exclusion barred coverage, reasoning that the exclusion was inapplicable absent evidence that the plaintiff “used his vehicle indiscriminately to transport members of the general public for hire, or regularly rented out his vehicle for hire.” The court recognized, however, that the exclusion would apply in cases where the driver “presents his services indiscriminately to the general public for hire.”

In light of the rising popularity of Transportation Network Companies (“TNCs”) such as Lyft and Uber, the coverage issues presented by this oft-forgotten exclusion should be carefully reexamined. TNC drivers, who use their personal vehicles to transport passengers, will often have no coverage under their personal policies due to the public or livery conveyance exclusion. This exclusion clearly applies to drivers actively transporting passengers and may even be triggered when the driver is simply using the ridesharing application to “troll” for potential customers. While some of these gaps have been addressed by commercial insurance policies provided by the TNCs, drivers may still be left without coverage in certain situations. For instance, although TNCs typically provide liability coverage for a driver who has the app turned on and is waiting to accept a ride, the TNC policies will not likely cover damages caused by someone or something else during that initial period. To account for this, the TNCs suggest that such damages may be covered by the at-fault driver’s policy or the TNC driver’s personal policy. However, the public or livery conveyance exclusion often extends to uninsured motorist, collision, and comprehensive coverage. And because courts have held that the public or livery conveyance exclusion applies when drivers “present their services” to the general public, the exclusion is arguably triggered even when the TNC driver is merely waiting for the application to connect to a customer.

Although the reach of this exclusion has yet to be fully examined in the context of ride-sharing services, these and other coverage issues will likely continue to arise. For additional information, please contact Connor Bateman at [email protected].