7/26/2019 PR RideSharingLegislation 6 16

1/2

For Immediate Release: Contact: Vincent RossettiJune 16, 2016 (518) 455-4436

ASSEMBLYMAN CAHILL TO UBER AND LYFT: STOP POSTURING AND

RECOGNIZE THE ASSEMBLYS COMMON SENSE PROPOSAL ON RIDE-SHARING

(Albany, NY)Assemblymember Kevin A. Cahill (D-Ulster, Dutchess) released the followingstatement:

Though the multinational billionaire investors in ride-sharing companies would like you to

believe a fairy tale about the big bad trial lawyers insisting on inflated insurance coverage andthus destroying chances for an agreement, the facts simply dont bear that out. In fact, the triallawyers issued a memorandum of opposition AFTER, the Assembly bill was amended to meetlimits Uber previously agreed to in New York City and in Newark, New Jersey.

Instead, companies like Uber are used to bullying their way around state legislatures across thecountry, insisting on dangerously low insurance, limited or no regulation and nonexistentprotection for drivers injured on the job. It was that tactic that failed here in New York.

On May 27, 2016 the Assembly bill was amended to match First Period insurance limited to thelevels Uber is required to maintain in New York City under their liverymodel. Second andThird Period insurance was adjusted to match levels in several other states and most recentlyagreed to by Uber with the City of Newark.

The New York State Trial Lawyers Association issued an opposition memorandum four dayslater on May 31, 2016 recommending at least $1 million in coverage across the board for allperiods and calling for other measures including driver compensation protection, backgroundchecks, regulation by both state and local governments and assuring access for people withdisabilities.

Arguments that trial lawyersunduly influenced the decision to raise limits not only distort theposition they took, but also require the suspension of reality to be accepted.

Lets be clear. From the time that this bill was first presented, the Assembly has taken an all-inclusive approach to discussions. In the fall of 2015, my colleagues and I on the Insurance,Local Governments and Transportation Committees and the Task Force on People withDisabilities held two roundtable discussions on ride-sharing. Included in these forums and inconversations on the topic going forward, were the ride-sharing companies, the insuranceindustry, the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, taxi, livery, bus and limousineoperators, disability rights advocates, the Conference of Mayors and Municipal Officials, the

7/26/2019 PR RideSharingLegislation 6 16

2/2

New York State Restaurant Association, the Business Council, the New York State AviationManagement Association, the New York State Trial Lawyers Association, credit unions,consumer representatives and other stakeholders.

If the insurance industry and ride-sharing companies claim after months of discussion that the

$100,000/$300,000 and $1.5 million liability requirements are too expensive, why haventthey presented the actuarial data to justify this position? For literally pennies more per ride,coverage in these amounts will ensure that drivers, riders and all New York State residents areadequately protected.

If New York City residents deserve $100,000/$300,000 policies when they set foot in an Uber,taxi or black car, why dont upstate and Long Island citizens deserve the same protections? Ifour neighbors to the south in Newark, New Jersey are protected with $1.5 million of coverage forPeriods 2 and 3, not to mention four other states that mandate this level, why cant we protect ourown residents with the same liability policies? To argue that they are too highis to devalue thelives of our citizens. Any claim that the trial lawyers or other group was the driving force behind

raising the limits, is a diversion.

We welcome Uber and Lyft to do business in our state and join public transit and private taxisto communities the transportation needs of our communities, but they must demonstrateresponsible corporate citizenship. Thwarting reasonable legislation that would allow them tooperate shows that they do not want to assume an appropriate level of responsibility and that theyclearly do not have the best interest of consumers or operators in mind.

The intent of this bill is to remove the roadblock from insurance that would allow upstate NewYork and Long Island access to ride-sharing while affording localities the ability to regulate andtailor these services to fit their unique transportation needs. Indeed, our proposal provides forinsurance coverage at all times during ride-sharing activity, affords drivers access to workerscompensation benefits and establishes comprehensive consumer protections. We are committedto advancing this common sense legislation and remain willing to negotiate responsibly with allparties to bring ride-sharing to our constituencies. I call upon the ride-sharing companies, theinsurance industry and all other stakeholders who do not view our proposal as a workablesolution to come back to the table to discuss terms instead of blame shifting and dragging theirfeet while the remaining hours of the legislative session quickly expire.

-30-