If you drive for Uber and another motorist crashes into you, you expect the law to protect your right to recover damages. However, what happens if your personal auto insurance lapsed before the collision? Does that automatically bar your Uber accident injury claim, even if you were actively providing a prearranged ride through the Uber app?
A recent New Jersey Appellate Division decision addressed that exact issue. In Wade v. Strauss, the court reversed a trial court ruling that had dismissed an injured Uber driver’s lawsuit based on insurance technicalities. The Wade decision is unpublished and not binding precedent, but its reasoning may be persuasive in similar rideshare coverage disputes.
If you were injured while driving for a rideshare service, contact CourtLaw Injury Lawyers today by phone at 732-442-5900 or through our online contact form to schedule a free, confidential consultation.
Wade v. Strauss Appellate Decision: How An Uber Driver’s Case Was Revived
The case arose from a July 10, 2019 motor vehicle collision on Clinton Street in Newark. At the time of the crash, the plaintiff operated her Mazda CX7 while providing a prearranged Uber ride to a passenger.
After the accident, she filed suit seeking damages for her injuries. However, the defense moved for summary judgment, arguing that her personal automobile liability insurance had lapsed before the crash. Under New Jersey’s No-Fault Act, a person who is required to maintain mandated medical expense benefits coverage but fails to do so may be barred from suing for economic and noneconomic damages.
The trial court agreed and dismissed her complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed that decision.
New Jersey No-Fault Act Litigation Bar: When Insurance Lapses Block A Lawsuit
New Jersey’s No-Fault Act requires certain drivers to maintain medical expense benefits, including PIP coverage. If someone is required to maintain that coverage but fails to do so and is injured while operating an uninsured automobile, the statute can bar recovery of economic and noneconomic damages.
The plaintiff did not dispute that her personal automobile insurance lapsed for nonpayment prior to the crash. Based on that fact, the trial court determined she was “culpably uninsured” and therefore barred from maintaining her lawsuit.
However, the appellate court recognized that rideshare drivers operate under a separate statutory framework that changes how their vehicles are classified.
Transportation Network Company Law In New Jersey: When A Rideshare Vehicle Is Not An Automobile
New Jersey enacted the Transportation Network Company Safety and Regulatory Act (TNCSRA) to govern companies like Uber. The law defines a personal vehicle as one used by a rideshare driver to provide prearranged rides.
Critically, the statute states that a personal vehicle shall not be considered an automobile under the No-Fault Act while the driver is providing a prearranged ride.
That language became central to the appeal. The plaintiff was actively transporting a passenger through the Uber application at the time of the crash. Therefore, the appellate court concluded her vehicle fit squarely within the TNCSRA’s definition of a personal vehicle during that trip.
In this context, classification turns on whether the driver was providing a prearranged ride, because the TNCSRA expressly ties the vehicle’s definition to that period of use.
Prearranged Ride Status And Insurance Requirements: Why Timing Matters
The TNCSRA sets different insurance requirements depending on the driver’s status:
- Logged in but not providing a ride
- Actively providing a prearranged ride
When a driver is providing a prearranged ride, the statute requires:
- Primary automobile liability insurance of at least $1.5 million
- Primary medical payments benefits of at least $10,000 for the driver
- Uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage of at least $1.5 million
Notably, the subsection governing active rides does not mirror the same PIP requirement language found in the logged in but not driving subsection.
That distinction matters. It means the analysis is not as simple as asking whether the driver’s personal policy lapsed. The court must examine whether applicable rideshare coverage satisfied statutory requirements at the time of the crash.
Uber Allstate Policy Dispute : Why The Court Ordered Further Review
During litigation, the plaintiff asserted she was insured through Uber’s policy issued by Allstate while she was providing rides. The declarations page reflected $1.5 million in liability coverage, $10,000 in medical payments, and $1.5 million in uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage.
However, the full Allstate policy was not included in the motion record. Because of that omission, the appellate court could not determine:
- Whether the plaintiff qualified as an insured under the Uber policy
- Whether the policy satisfied the TNCSRA requirement of valid automobile liability insurance
The appellate court emphasized that insurance policies must be interpreted according to their plain language. Without the full policy, the trial court could not properly resolve those questions.
As a result, the Appellate Division reversed the summary judgment dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings.
What This Means For Injured Uber Drivers In Newark And Beyond: Insurance Technicalities Do Not Always End The Case
This decision sends a clear message. In rideshare injury cases, courts must carefully analyze the interaction between the No-Fault Act and the TNCSRA before barring a claim.
If you were actively providing a prearranged ride, your vehicle may not be treated as an automobile under the No-Fault Act for purposes of the litigation bar. Additionally, coverage provided through Uber’s policy may satisfy statutory insurance requirements if the driver qualifies as an insured under that policy and the coverage meets the TNCSRA standards, even if the driver’s personal policy lapsed.
That does not guarantee recovery. It does mean courts cannot dismiss these cases without fully reviewing the applicable insurance contracts and statutory framework. The Appellate Division did not rule that Uber’s policy automatically applied; instead, it remanded the case so the trial court could interpret the full insurance contract and determine whether the driver was covered.
Building A Strong Rideshare Injury Claim: Steps That Protect Your Rights Early
Because rideshare cases often turn on timing and coverage, early documentation matters. After a crash while driving for Uber, you should secure:
- Trip confirmation: Screenshots or records showing you accepted and were actively providing a ride
- App status data: Documentation of when the ride began and ended
- Police report details: Report number and responding agency
- Insurance communications: All notices from Uber, your carrier, or the at fault driver’s insurer
- Medical documentation: Emergency care records and follow-up treatment
These records can become critical if an insurer argues you were uninsured or improperly classified at the time of the crash.
Rideshare Injury Representation In New Jersey: Legal Strategy Matters In Coverage Disputes
Rideshare accident claims often involve layered insurance structures and statutory interpretation issues that do not arise in ordinary car crash cases. As Wade v. Strauss demonstrates, a case can hinge on how a court interprets insurance policy language and how it applies the TNCSRA.
Attorneys Michelle Labrada and James Marchwinski handle injury litigation involving complex coverage disputes and rideshare drivers. When insurance companies attempt to deny or limit claims based on technical arguments, a focused legal strategy can make the difference between dismissal and continued litigation.
If you were injured while driving for Uber or another rideshare platform in Newark, Essex County, Middlesex County, or elsewhere in New Jersey, do not assume an insurance lapse automatically ends your case. Call CourtLaw Injury Lawyers at 732-442-5900 or reach out through our online contact form to speak with an attorney and learn how we can help protect your rights.
Disclaimer: This blog is intended for informational purposes only and does not establish an attorney-client relationship. It should not be considered as legal advice. For personalized legal assistance, please consult our team directly.