(Westlaw) American Transit Insurance Co. must cover Uber Technologies Inc. in 23 lawsuits brought by individuals who allege they were injured in accidents caused by the company’s independent drivers, a Manhattan federal judge has ruled.
Uber Technologies Inc. et al. v. American Transit Insurance Co., No. 24-cv-1207, 2026 WL 587834 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2026)
U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres of the Southern District of New York said March 3 that Uber sufficiently demonstrated that ATIC had breached its duty to defend and indemnify the ride-hailing giant and is liable for damages because the underlying suits clearly trigger coverage.
Car crash claims
New York drivers who are licensed by the city’s Taxi & Limousine Commission to operate for-hire vehicles are required to carry a minimum of $100,000 in commercial automobile liability insurance to protect them against bodily injury and property damage claims.
In contracting to drive for Uber, drivers also must agree to add the company as an additional insured under their policies.
The coverage dispute stems from nearly two dozen New York state court lawsuits brought by riders or third parties who allege they were injured in a motor vehicle accident caused by an Uber driver.
All of the suits allege that the driver was using Uber’s “rides platform” app when the accident occurred and that Uber is vicariously liable for the driver’s conduct.
Uber tendered the actions to ATIC for defense and indemnification. However, the insurer disclaimed coverage entirely, forcing Uber to pay substantial funds to defend itself, according to the ride-share company.
Uber sued ATIC in February 2024, alleging that the underlying plaintiffs’ bid to hold it vicariously liable for the drivers’ conduct triggered coverage because the policies define “insured” to encompass “anyone liable for the conduct of an ‘insured'” to the extent of that liability.
The complaint sought a declaration that the insurer acted in breach of contract and is obligated to defend and indemnify Uber in the underlying suits.
Ultimate liability ‘not a consideration’
In granting Uber’s motion for summary judgment, Judge Torres agreed with the company that the underlying claims clearly triggered ATIC’s duty to defend and indemnify it.
ATIC argued that Uber does not qualify as an insured because undisputed evidence shows that the company cannot be held liable for the conduct of its co-defendant independent drivers.
But the judge said ATIC cannot make such an assumption in assessing its coverage obligations. Rather, its duty to defend exists regardless of whether Uber ultimately escapes liability in the underlying litigation, she said.
As the New York Court of Appeals has made quite clear, ‘the ultimate responsibility of the insured is not a consideration’ when a complaint’s allegations are sufficient to trigger the duty to defend.
Judge Torres said, quoting Colon v. Aetna Life & Casualty Insurance Co., 66 484 N.E.2d 1040 (N.Y. 1985).
She further ruled that Uber is permitted to select independent counsel of its choice to defend the subset of underlying suits that allege theories of direct liability against the company.
This is so, she said, because ATIC’s interests conflict with Uber’s in those actions given that the ride-hailing company is insured under the policies “only to the extent that Uber is liable under the vicarious liability theory, but not any direct liability theory.”
Attorneys with Perkins Coie LLP represented Uber. Daniel Wagner London and Robert S. Nobel of London Fischer LLP represented ATIC.