[Nfbmo] [Nfbmo} Re: Deputies: Uber driver refused ride to blind man, s...

DanFlasar at aol.com DanFlasar at aol.com
Sat Jul 9 03:11:51 UTC 2016


I can't understand the legalese, but thanks for the  info.   I wonder why 
cabs are exempt from providing injury  compensation when other carriers 
(buses, trains, planes, etc) are required  to.
Dan
 
 
 
In a message dated 7/8/2016 9:18:04 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
nfbmo at nfbnet.org writes:

Hello  everyone , 
Here is the statue for Missouri and it is the same revised  statue for all 
of the other states in the United States. The taxi cab  companies DO NOT 
cover their passengers {Us - the riders}!!!!  

***Missouri Revised Statutes***
Chapter 379
Insurance Other Than  Life
Section 379.203.1 
August 28, 2015

Automobile liability  policy, required provisions--uninsured motorist 
coverage required--recovery  against tort-feasor, how limited. 

379.203. 1. No automobile liability  insurance covering liability arising 
out of the ownership, maintenance, or use  of any motor vehicle shall be 
delivered or issued for delivery in this state  with respect to any motor 
vehicle registered or principally garaged in this  state unless coverage is 
provided therein or supplemental thereto, or in the  case of any commercial motor 
vehicle, as defined in section 301.010, any  employer having a fleet of five 
or more passenger vehicles, such coverage is  offered therein or 
supplemental thereto, in not less than the limits for  bodily injury or death set 
forth in section 303.030, for the protection of  persons insured thereunder who 
are legally entitled to recover damages from  owners or operators of 
uninsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury,  sickness or disease, including 
death, resulting therefrom. Such legal  entitlement exists although the 
identity of the owner or operator of the motor  vehicle cannot be established 
because such owner
or operator and the  motor vehicle departed the scene of the occurrence 
occasioning such bodily  injury, sickness or disease, including death, before 
identification. It also  exists whether or not physical contact was made 
between the uninsured motor  vehicle and the insured or the insured's motor 
vehicle. Provisions affording  such insurance protection against uninsured 
motorists issued in this state  prior to October 13, 1967, shall, when afforded 
by any authorized insurer, be  deemed, subject to the limits prescribed in 
this section, to satisfy the  requirements of this section. 
2. For the purpose of this coverage, the  term "uninsured motor vehicle" 
shall, subject to the terms and conditions of  such coverage, be deemed to 
include an insured motor vehicle where the  liability insurer thereof is unable 
to make payment with respect to the legal  liability of its insured within 
the limits specified herein because of  insolvency. 
3. An insurer's insolvency protection shall be applicable only  to 
accidents occurring during a policy period in which its insured's uninsured  
motorist coverage is in effect where the liability insurer of the tort-feasor  
becomes insolvent within two years after such an accident. Nothing herein  
contained shall be construed to prevent any insurer from affording insolvency  
protection under terms and conditions more favorable to its insureds than is  
provided hereunder. 
4. In the event of payment to any person under the  coverage required by 
this section, and subject to the terms and conditions of  such coverage, the 
insurer making such payment shall, to the extent thereof,  be entitled to the 
proceeds of any settlement or judgment resulting from the  exercise of any 
rights of recovery of such person against any person or  organization 
legally responsible for the bodily injury for which such payment  is made, 
including the proceeds recoverable from the assets of the insolvent  insurer; 
provided, however, with respect to payments made by reason of the  coverage 
described in subsections 2 and 3 above, the insurer making such  payment shall 
not be entitled to any right of recovery against such  tort-feasor in excess 
of the proceeds recovered from the assets of the  insolvent insurer of said 
tort-feasor. 
5. In any action on a policy of  automobile liability insurance coverage 
providing for the protection of  persons insured thereunder who are legally 
entitled to recover damages from  owners or operators of uninsured motor 
vehicles, the fact that the owner or  operator of such uninsured motor vehicle 
whether known or unknown failed to  file the report required by section 
303.040 shall be prima facie evidence of  uninsured status, and such failure to 
file may be established by a statement  of the absence of such a report on 
file with the office of the director of  revenue, certified by the director, 
which statement shall be received in  evidence in any of the courts of this 
state. In any such action, the report  required by section 303.040, when filed 
by the owner or operator of an  uninsured motor vehicle, shall be prima 
facie evidence of lack of insurance  coverage and the report, or a copy 
thereof, certified by the director of  revenue, may be introduced into evidence in 
accordance with 
section  303.310. 
(L. 1967 p. 516, A.L. 1971 H.B. 85, A.L. 1972 S.B. 458, A.L. 1982  S.B. 
480, A.L. 1991 H.B. 385, et al.)

So remember when you are  riding..... YOU ARE NOT COVERED!!
KIM K.

-----Original  Message-----
From: Nfbmo [mailto:nfbmo-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of  Shelia Wright 
via Nfbmo
Sent: Friday, July 8, 2016 7:17 PM
To: 'NFB of  Missouri Mailing List' <nfbmo at nfbnet.org>
Cc: Shelia Wright  <sbwright95 at att.net>
Subject: Re: [Nfbmo] {Spam?} Re: Deputies: Uber  driver refused ride to 
blind man, service dog

Not really. Many cab  drivers drive their own vehicle. The alternative is 
usually one of renting a  car by the day which eats into the driver's earning 
potential.

The same  type of issues with dog guides come up with regular cab companies 
too. The  difference is that the regular cab driver sometimes will just be 
a no show as  they keep driving. Others are more bold and site allergies, 
religion, or fear  of dogs as why they can't take you in their car.

I don't even think the  cab companies all cover injury to the driver or  
pasengers.

Discrimination is very real and it must be addressed when it  occurs.
Regulations don't always ensure non-discrimination or passenger  safety.

Programs like Uber and lift are newcomers I'm glad we  have as 
transportation options. Let's address the problem drivers and hold  Uber responsible for 
carrying out the settlement they have recently agreed  upon. Let's not 
conclude that the service as a whole is problematic. I get  really weary of 
people trying to justify why someone discriminated against one  of us.

Shelia



-----Original  Message-----
From: Nfbmo [mailto:nfbmo-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Dan  Flasar via 
Nfbmo
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 2:12 PM
To:  nfbmo at nfbnet.org
Cc: DanFlasar at aol.com
Subject: [Nfbmo] {Spam?} Re:  Deputies: Uber driver refused ride to blind 
man, service dog

And this  is exactly the problem with Uber, or Lift or any other service 
that puts all  the risk on the 'contractor' (Uber drivers are not considered   
employees, legally).   A cab driver drives for a company  vehicle,  carries 
company insurance, is paid a salary and receives  all tips on top of  that. 
 
The more they drive, the nore they  make, at little personal  risk.
U
Uber  drivers pay for everything themselves (gas,  insurance, maintenance 
),  provide their own vehicle, and are not allowed to  accept tips.  If  an 
Uber driver gets in an accident, it's tough luck for  the driver - he  is out 
everything.  If a cab driver is in an accident, the  company  bears the cost
- the driver is out nothing, though he could lose his  job  if he is at 
fault.

So this is the problem - a  cab is just as much a public conveyance as  a 
bus or a train or a plane -  there are hard fought laws that guarantee the 
right of people to bring their  service dogs into such vehicles.

But when it's your own  car, that's something quite  different.  Unlike a 
cabbie, an Uber  driver DOES take his car home, and if  a family member is 
allergic to dog  fur, that's a legitimate concern.

Right now,  the status of Uber drivers  is in legal limbo - they are not 
considered  to be employees of the company, do  not have assigned shifts, have 
no  benefits whatsoever, and can refuse to take on  riders for their 
own  reasons.    

Full disclosure, Uber is  just the latest  example of the eroding status of 
workers rights.   Uber has been thrown out  of cities and countries all 
over the world,  primarily because it's business  model is designed to evade 
the   'public' part of 'public  transportation').    I hope Uber is  taken 
to 
court over this  issue .  Uber has had many challenges  to it's business 
model in the last  few  years - they were thrown  out of Austin, Texas because 
they refused to  comply with state law that  all cab drivers have their 
fingerprints scanned for  criminal  records.  Right now they skirt public 
safety laws via their   business mnodel - courts may help to sort this out.
And of  course, not all Uber drivers will refuse to allow a  service dog in 
their  vehicle, but it appears that right now, they are under no  legal  
obligation to do so.
This case could be a   game-changer.

Dan



In a message dated  7/8/2016 6:29:19 A.M. Central Daylight Time, 
nfbmo at nfbnet.org  writes:


His  daughter is allergic to dogs, so he didn't want  to allow a service 
dog in his   vehicle.

Source:

http://www.fox4news.com/news/u-s-world/170689636-story

We   have all heard stories of drivers refusing service to dog handling 
teams  on  the grounds they are allergic or fear dogs. But Uber introduces a 
new  wrinkle  into this battle. Since they use their own private cars, they  
can claim that  relatives are allergic to dogs to refuse  service.

This is not something  to be overlooked in light of the  proposed 
settlement with Uber now pending in  the  court.

Regards

Daniel   Garcia


_______________________________________________
Nfbmo   mailing   list
Nfbmo at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmo_nfbnet.org
To   unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info  for
Nfbmo:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmo_nfbnet.org/danflasar%40aol.com

_______________________________________________
Nfbmo  mailing  list
Nfbmo at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmo_nfbnet.org
To  unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for  
Nfbmo:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmo_nfbnet.org/sbwright95%40att.net


_______________________________________________
Nfbmo  mailing  list
Nfbmo at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmo_nfbnet.org
To  unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for  
Nfbmo:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmo_nfbnet.org/thinkingk%40hotmail.com

_______________________________________________
Nfbmo  mailing  list
Nfbmo at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmo_nfbnet.org
To  unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for  
Nfbmo:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmo_nfbnet.org/danflasar%40aol.com




More information about the NFBMO mailing list