Tag Archives: sharing economy

Proper protection is key in a sharing economy

Whether you’re sharing rides, homes, workspaces, driveways, food experiences, or even, as in China, umbrellas and basketballs, the sharing economy continues to expand into new areas.

And so do the associated risks and liability.

From today’s I.I.I. Daily, via The New York Times: “Airbnb, the peer-to-peer vacation rental and hospitality site, is facing a lawsuit in which a guest says that the company did not perform appropriate background checks on a host who allegedly sexually assaulted her. According to the plaintiff, a background check would have uncovered information that the owner had been arrested and charged with battery, preventing him from listing property on Airbnb according to the terms of service.”

Whether you’re looking to rent out your space to someone or rent a space from someone via a peer-to-peer network, it’s important to know whether you’re insured.

Some tips on peer-to-peer home rental from the I.I.I.

Note: Airbnb has a Host Protection Program that provides hosts and landlords up to $1 million coverage for property damage and liability claims that occur in a listing or on an Airbnb property, during a stay.

But here are the risks that the Airbnb policy doesn’t cover:

“The Host Protection Insurance program does not apply to liability arising from (1) Intentional Acts including: (i) Assault and Battery or (ii) Sexual Abuse or Molestation – (by the host or any other insured party), (2) Loss of Earnings, (3) Personal and Advertising Injury, (4) Fungi or Bacteria, (5) Chinese Drywall, (6) Communicable Diseases (7) Acts of Terrorism, (8) Product Liability, (9) Pollution and (10) Asbestos, Lead or Silica.”

 

Growth Potential of Sharing Economy, and Insurance

If, like me, you’ve taken a ride to the airport with Uber, or looked into renting a holiday home via Airbnb, did you take a moment to think about your insurance coverage?

If the answer to that question is “no,” you’re not alone.

A recent public opinion survey from the Insurance Research Council (IRC) found that 56 percent of all adult Americans who said they have participated in the sharing economy indicated that they did not consider their insurance coverage at the time.

This is despite the fact that more than half of all respondents said that the sharing economy exposes the general population to increased risk.

Some 71 percent of respondents to the same survey reported little familiarity with the sharing economy, with 46 percent saying they were “not at all familiar” with the sharing economy, while 25 percent reported being “not too familiar.”

Survey respondents gave numerous reasons for not participating in the sharing economy. Unfamiliarity was cited most frequently (65 percent), while lack of need was cited by 60 percent and lack of interest by 54 percent.

However, a lack of insurance was the least cited reason for not participating.

Elizabeth Sprinkel, senior vice president of the IRC, noted:

“The substantial number of people with little experience or familiarity with the sharing economy suggests tremendous growth potential in the years ahead.”

And for insurers, too, we would add.

Check out a recent Insurance Information Institute (I.I.I.) presentation on the role of insurance in the sharing economy.

Other I.I.I. resources include information on car sharing and peer-to-peer car rental insurance as well as peer-to-peer home rental and homeowners insurance.

The IRC report, The Sharing Economy: Public Participation and Views, presents findings from an online survey conducted by GfK Public Affairs & Corporate Communications on behalf of the IRC.

A total of 1,105 online interviews were conducted for the study, using a sample drawn from GfK’s Knowledge Panel. Survey data were weighted to the U.S. population of adults aged 18 and above.

Modernizing Regulation Key To Insuring Sharing Economy

How free are insurers to provide the insurance products consumers want?

That’s a key question that the R Street Institute’s Insurance Regulation Report Card seeks to answer.

And it’s a very good question.

In the fourth and latest edition of the report R Street observes that regulation, in some cases, may hinder the speed with which new products are brought to market:

We believe innovative new products could be more widespread if more states were to free their insurance markets by embracing regulatory modernization.”

R Street says the most recent illustration of this challenge is seen in the different approaches individual states have taken to enable the timely introduction of commercial and personal insurance policies to cover ridesharing.

A compromise model bill to govern insurance requirements for ridesharing was announced by major representatives of the insurance industry and the burgeoning transportation network companies in March 2015.

The legislation alleviated what had been a major source of interindustry friction, R Street notes.

The model requires that:

– liability insurance with limits of $1 million be in-force any time a driver either is actively transporting a customer or en route to pick up a fare.

– any other time the driver is logged in to the TNC service, he or she must have coverage with minimum liability limits of $50,000 per passenger, $100,000 per incident and $25,000 for physical damage liability.

R Street writes:

The model would permit coverage to be procured either by the driver or the TNC,   expressly stipulates that it may be provided by the surplus lines market, preserves insurers’ right to exclude coverage and encourages states to approve new products to cover this emerging risk.”

Signatories to the compromise include Allstate, the American Insurance Association, Farmers Insurance, Lyft, the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, State Farm, Uber Technologies and USAA.

The report notes that in April 2015, Georgia became the first state to pass the compromise model ridesharing bill. The measure, H.B. 190, took effect January 1, 2016.

Have more questions? Check out the Insurance Information Institute’s (I.I.I.) Q&A on Ridesharing and Insurance.

An I.I.I. issues update on regulation modernization is available here.

One Ruling, But Uber Impact

A California Labor Commission ruling that an Uber driver is a company employee, not an independent contractor may dampen fears that the on-demand economy spells the end for workers compensation, liability and health insurance. At least for now.

As reported by numerous news outlets, here and here, the decision out of California — though it applies to a single driver — could significantly increase costs for the ride-sharing business if it is copied by other states and in other cases.

It could also have potential implications for other segments of the economy important to property/casualty insurers.

As the New York Times reports:

The classification of freelancers is in dispute across a number of industries, including at other transportation companies. And the debate is set to escalate as the number of online companies and apps like Uber and others rises.”

The ruling, which commentators say could hurt Uber’s $40 billion-plus valuation, orders Uber to pay Barbara Berwick, $4,152 in expenses for the time she worked as an Uber driver last year.

Here are a couple of key excerpts from the California Labor Commission decision:

Plaintiffs’ work was integral to Defendants’ business. Defendants are in business to provide transportation services to passengers. Plaintiff did the actual transporting of those passengers. Without drivers such as Plaintiff, Defendants’ business would not exist.”

And:

Defendants hold themselves as nothing more than a neutral technological platform, designed simply to enable drivers and passengers to transact the business of transportation. The reality, however, is that Defendants are involved in every aspect of the operation.”

In response to the ruling (which it has appealed) Uber stated:

The California Labor Commission’s ruling is non-binding and applies to a single driver. Indeed it is contrary to a previous ruling by the same commission, which concluded in 2012 that the driver ‘performed services as an independent contractor, and not as a bona fide employee.’ Five other states have also come to the same conclusion.”

Potential insurance issues arising out of the on-demand or sharing economy are a recurring topic of conversation these days.

In a recent presentation I.I.I. president Dr. Robert Hartwig noted that traditional insurance will often not cover a worker engaged in offering labor or resources through these on-demand platforms.

For example, private passenger auto insurance generally won’t cover you while driving for Uber and a homeowners insurance policy won’t cover a homeowner for anything other than occasional rents of their property.

Also, Dr. Hartwig said: “Unless self-procured, on-demand workers (independent contractors) will generally have no workers comp recourse if injured on the job.”