GEICO's anti-Uber Insurance Warning
Sorry for being late. Busy week.
My associate, Yosef, is buying an auto insurance policy from GEICO. At the end of the process, the GEICO agent says she needs to read him a warning. About Rideshare.
GEICO then proceed to say that Ride-Sharing was not personal use, not covered, and driving in a ride-sharing agreement would lead to cancellation.
Or at least that's how he remembers it.
I admire GEICO for having their agents set up their coverage defense, but I don't think it will deter litigation over the coverage denials.
I imagine the agents are also doing this to stop a Sadler-based agent/broker-negligence claim for not warning people about ride sharing. GEICO may have become wise.
Which leads to another question. Say an agent knows his client drives Uber and does not warn him about the coverage issue? Is that negligence? In Maryland, I doubt an agent needs to ask beause agents do not need to give advice, but I can see the argument considering how common the practice is these days.
I've been meaning to sit down and master ride-share-insurance-law one of these days. I consign it to the bucket list alongside Riot Insurance and Unfair Trade Practice claims.