by KPMLAW | Feb 23, 2016 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized
Written by Gary Reinhardt, Esq. Have you used a Transportation Network Company (TNC) yet? That is the fancy, statutory name for “ride share” companies such as Uber and Lyft. As most are aware, a TNC relies on its drivers to use their personal vehicle. The prospective passenger contacts a TNC driver through the use of a smartphone app. From there, the driver acts as a typical taxicab although personal experience has shown these cars to be cleaner and the driver to be nicer. Payment for the ride is made via credit or debit card already entered into the TNC’s digital platform. The TNC concept is fairly new and courts have yet to sort out the morass of legal and insuring issues these ride shares cause. State statutes set out a comprehensive regulatory framework for these companies, including requirements that essentially label these TNC vehicles and require minimum insurance limits. Starting with Va. Code Ann. § 46.2-2099.48, the Virginia legislature sets out what a TNC and its driver must do to operate in the Commonwealth. This statute requires that all TNC drivers carry “proof of coverage under each in-force TNC insurance policy, which may be displayed as part of the digital platform, and each in-force personal automobile insurance policy covering the vehicle.” This same statute limits a driver from driving more than 13 hours during any 24 hour period. The statute also requires that a TNC vehicle have a different color decal on the license plate, the year decal that shows you have renewed the vehicle registration. Virginia TNC vehicles will have a black decal with yellow “VA” letters and...
by KPMLAW | Oct 17, 2015 | KPMBlog, News, Uncategorized
Written by Gary Reinhardt, Esq. With significant statutory changes looming, the Virginia Supreme Court expanded the reach of Underinsured Motorist coverage in the case of Bratton v. Selective Insurance, decided on September 17, 2015. In Bratton, the plaintiff’s decedent, a dump truck driver, was an employee of a paving subcontractor working on a highway asphalt project. The plaintiff’s decedent hauled hot asphalt to the job site and dumped the asphalt into the bucket of a front end loader. The dump truck driver’s job required him to periodically exit his dump truck to check for spillage of the asphalt. Given that the job was being done at night, as an additional safety measure, the superintendent for the paving subcontractor parked his pick-up truck with flashing lights and headlights illuminated at the start of the work zone. The pick-up truck was parked approximately 200 feet from where the dump truck stopped to unload asphalt. At the time of the accident, the decedent had exited the cab of his dump truck and was standing near the truck. He had been out of the truck for less than 30 seconds when two drunk drivers barreled past the superintendent’s pick-up truck and struck the front end loader. The decedent was found pinned between one of the drunk driver’s vehicles, the front end loader and the rear of the dump truck. He died as a result of his injuries. The plaintiff claimed that both the UIM policy of the dump truck and the UIM policy of the pick-up were available to the dump truck driver’s estate; the dump truck’s policy under the theory that the...
