Portier, Inc., the parent company of Uber Eats (Uber Eats), and its insurer, James River, recently won an appeal in Superior Court of New Jersey, where the judges ruled that food delivery companies like Uber Eats are not subject to the mandate for transportation network companies to carry the statutory minimum for uninsured motorist (UM) coverage. The case is Malzberg v. Josey et al., 2022 N.J. Super. LEXIS 125 (N.J. Super. Ct. 2022).
Shortly after Scott Malzberg began using his personal motorcycle to deliver orders for Uber Eats, he was struck by a vehicle driven by Caren Josey. Malzberg's resultant hospital and other medical bills exceeded the coverage available from Josey's personal auto policy. He turned to Portier's business auto policy with James River to cover the excess. Unfortunately for Malzberg, the policy applicable to Uber Eats did not provide UM coverage. James River moved for summary judgment; a judge granted the motion and dismissed Malzberg's claim against James River with prejudice. Malzberg appealed.
In the subsequent suit, Malzberg asserted that New Jersey's Transportation Network Company Safety and Regulatory Act (TNCSRA) required transportation network companies to provide a minimum $1.5 million in UM coverage to drivers for prearranged rides. He argued that this mandate extended to Uber Eats because the "related services" mentioned in the TNCSRA definition of a "transportation network company driver" encompassed drivers who arranged to deliver food for a transportation network company.
The court generally agreed that statutory interpretation required "giv[ing] meaning to every word and phrase in a statute" but said Malzberg had taken the phrase out of context. The TNCSRA defined a "transportation network company driver" as "a person who receives connections to potential riders and related services from a transportation network company in exchange for payment of a fee to the transportation network company…" (emphasis added). Malzberg's view of "and related services" ignored the part of the definition connecting "and related services" to prearranged rides and potential riders. Under N.J.S.A. 39:5H-2, a "rider" meant someone who arranged transportation with a driver through a transportation network company's database.
Simply because Uber Eats employed a similar digital network in arranging for delivering food versus transporting human passengers, the court said, did not mean Uber Eats was subject to the same insurance requirements. The judges affirmed the verdict for the insurer.
Editor's Note: As always, the wording of policy language and statute is critically important to the understanding of what's intended. The plaintiff in this situation wanted to interpret language specific to ride-sharing to food delivery, which was out of sync with the statutory intent. Whether or not the statutory language intentionally excluded drivers delivering products instead of transporting people or not, courts cannot simply make a decision changing statutory language. Courts interpret the law, but they aren't allowed to interpret law that isn't there.