roythebus wrote:
Maybe it'll be the end of poober if they can't get anyone to insure their business?
I doubt if it's risky enough that it's uninsurable - don't know much about the industry, to be honest, but I've always generally assumed that everything's insurable at the right price.
Which seems to have been what went wrong here - the business does specifically say that the problem is that they 'mispriced' Uber's business, and are now, er, paying the price.
However, the real reason for withdrawal doesn't seem to be the original mispricing, but the decision of Californian regulators to make Uber drivers employees, although it's not spelt out precisely what the insurance implications are.
But apart from that, it's stated that the coverage is now 'well-priced', so essentially the original problem was just a massive miscalculation, although the employee thing now seems to be a game-changer.
Quote:
A new California law designed to limit the use of “gig” workers ultimately swayed James River to cancel the Uber account, despite coverage now being “well-priced,” Abram said.
The law, which goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2020, spells out when companies must treat “gig economy” contract workers, such as ride-hailing drivers, as employees. “We believe (it) will adversely alter the claims profile for ride-share companies,” Abram said