Court Ruling — E.D.N.Y, 2025 #10742639

**Uber Driver's Insurance Coverage Dispute** This case involved a dispute over insurance coverage for an accident involving an Uber driver. The driver (plaintiff) was injured in an accident and sought uninsured motorist coverage through policies connected to Uber and its subsidiary Rasier-DC. The driver argued that Florida's Transportation Network Company Act required this type of coverage to be provided. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Uber, Progressive Insurance, and Rasier-DC. The court found that Florida's law did not require uninsured motorist coverage in this situation because the insurance policy didn't cover a specific identified vehicle, and Rasier-DC had properly rejected this type of coverage in writing. **What This Means for Workers:** This ruling is significant for gig workers, particularly rideshare drivers. It shows that insurance coverage for drivers working through platforms like Uber can be complex and limited. Drivers should carefully review what insurance protection they have while working, as coverage may not be as comprehensive as expected. The decision reinforces that companies can legally reject certain types of coverage, potentially leaving drivers with gaps in protection. Gig workers should consider obtaining their own additional insurance coverage to protect themselves in case of accidents.