Attorney Advertising
Los Angeles rideshare accident lawyer
Short answer
If you were hurt in an Uber or Lyft crash in Los Angeles, two policies may apply: the rideshare company's million liability coverage when the driver is on a trip, or the driver's personal insurance when the app is off. California's two-year deadline under Code of Civil Procedure §335.1 still applies. Burg & Brock handles rideshare passenger, driver, and third-party cases across LA County. Call (818) 873-9216 for a free case review.
Uber, Lyft, Doordash, and Instacart cases turn on which insurance period was active at the moment of impact — and on whether AB-5 or Proposition 22 controls the employment classification.
Call (888) 528-8595 for a free consultation
Reach a lawyer 24/7. The consultation is free. You owe no fee unless we recover for you. Seven California offices: Sherman Oaks (HQ), Glendale, Beverly Hills, Irvine, Bakersfield, Visalia, and Modesto.
$1B+
Recovered for clients
Why a rideshare case is not a routine auto case
A rideshare collision in Los Angeles is procedurally and substantively different from a regular auto case. Three things change. First, the policy stack — every Uber, Lyft, Doordash, and Instacart driver operates under a multi-tier insurance regime imposed by California's Public Utilities Commission and codified in Public Utilities Code §5440 through §5443. The coverage that applies depends on which app period was active at the moment of impact. Second, employment classification — the AB-5/Dynamex framework was substantially overridden by Proposition 22 for app-based drivers, but the classification still matters for vicarious-liability analysis. Third, evidence — trip data, GPS pings, and dispatch records live on platform servers and require subpoena.
The PUC framework defines three insurance periods. Period 1: app on, no ride request matched. Period 2: ride accepted, en route to pickup. Period 3: passenger in the vehicle (or, for delivery, package in the vehicle). Period 1 carries $50,000 per person / $100,000 per accident / $30,000 property. Periods 2 and 3 carry $1 million in third-party liability and $1 million in uninsured/underinsured motorist. The triggers and the exact policy depend on the platform and the policy period — and on whether the driver was logged into more than one app simultaneously, a frequency that has increased substantially.
The medical course in a rideshare case is the same as any auto case — emergency department, imaging, orthopedic and neurosurgical workup as needed, then physical therapy, pain management, and any required surgical course. What changes is the recovery vehicle. The driver's personal auto policy almost certainly excludes commercial use; that exclusion is the gateway to the platform's commercial coverage. We work the policy-stack identification at the start so the case is not bottlenecked behind a denied claim from the personal carrier.
Burg & Brock has handled rideshare cases out of the Sherman Oaks headquarters and Beverly Hills office. The category is distinct from the firm's existing Uber-only page; this representation covers Uber, Lyft, Doordash, Instacart, Postmates, GrubHub, Amazon Flex, and the smaller delivery platforms operating in Los Angeles County.
On evidence, the platform-side records — accepted-trip log, GPS coordinates over time, app-period status at impact, driver app version, and the ride-accept-to-impact timeline — are critical and only obtainable by subpoena or formal request through the platform's legal-response unit. We move on those records in the first thirty days because the platforms apply retention policies that are platform-specific and not always favorable to plaintiffs.
Your rights under California law
Rideshare cases sit at the intersection of California's general negligence law, the PUC's transportation-network-company (TNC) regulations, and the post-Proposition-22 employment framework. The statutes below set the framework.
Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 set the ABC-test framework for independent-contractor classification that AB-5 codified. Proposition 22 substantially overrode Dynamex/AB-5 for app-based drivers but the test still applies for delivery couriers operating outside the Prop 22 carve-out.
Castellanos v. State of California (2024) — the California Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Proposition 22, confirming that app-based drivers in the rideshare and delivery industries are independent contractors under California law for purposes of the labor protections at issue. The decision did not eliminate vicarious-liability theories against the platforms; common-carrier and apparent-agency theories remain available.
How Burg & Brock works your case
Rideshare cases require working the platform side and the policy side in parallel. The platform-side evidence is time-sensitive; the policy-side identification controls who pays.
- Trip-data preservation. Within the first thirty days, we send a litigation hold notice to the platform's legal-response unit (Uber Legal, Lyft Legal Operations, Doordash Litigation, Instacart Legal) demanding preservation of the accepted-trip log, GPS coordinates, app-period status at the moment of impact, driver app version, and any in-app communications between rider and driver.
- Insurance-period identification. We determine which app period was active at the moment of impact — Period 1 (app on, no ride matched), Period 2 (en route to pickup), or Period 3 (passenger or package in vehicle). The applicable policy and limits flow from the period.
- Driver and platform-side discovery. Driver background-check records, prior driving history, hours logged in the seventy-two hours before the collision (a fatigue indicator), and any in-app safety-incident reports. The driver's personal carrier's denial letter is the formal trigger for the platform's commercial coverage.
- Medical coordination. ER records from the receiving facility, treating-physician follow-up, imaging review, and where necessary specialist referrals (orthopedic, neurology, pain management). Medi-Cal, health insurance, or medical-lien arrangements are coordinated to keep treatment moving.
- Liability and reconstruction. An accident reconstructionist for impact dynamics; biomechanical analysis tying injury pattern to mechanism; in distracted-driving suspect cases, a forensic phone-records review.
- Demand and litigation. Once medical course is established, the demand goes out structured to the policy stack: personal carrier exclusion letter attached, platform commercial policy referenced, UM/UIM if the at-fault driver is uninsured. Filing follows when the offer falls below a reasonable jury range.
Operational note: as a rideshare passenger, you have rights against the driver, the platform's commercial coverage, and (if the at-fault party was a third-party driver who hit your rideshare) that driver's policy plus the platform's UM/UIM coverage. The recovery routes are not mutually exclusive.
Common rideshare collision profiles in Los Angeles
Passenger-injury cases. Uber or Lyft passenger injured when their rideshare driver causes a collision. Period 3 active. $1 million third-party liability.
Rideshare driver as plaintiff. An Uber or Lyft driver injured by a third-party at-fault driver. Driver's claim against the third party, plus platform UM/UIM if the third party is uninsured.
Pedestrian or cyclist struck by rideshare. Outside-the-vehicle plaintiff struck by an Uber or Lyft driver in any of the three app periods.
Doordash or Instacart delivery collisions. Same multi-tier policy framework; food and grocery delivery cases on Sunset, Wilshire, Pico, La Brea, and the West Hollywood corridor.
Multi-app driver collisions. Driver logged into Uber, Lyft, and Doordash simultaneously — which platform's policy controls is litigated case-by-case based on which app's job was active.
Period 1 collisions. App on, no ride matched. Lower-coverage period ($50K/$100K/$30K) — UM/UIM coverage often becomes the recovery vehicle.
Wrongful-death cases. Fatal rideshare collisions on the 405, 101, 110, or city streets — heirs' wrongful-death claim under CCP §377.60.
DUI rideshare driver cases. Despite background-check policies, DUI cases involving rideshare drivers do occur — punitive-damages exposure under Civil Code §3294.
Distracted-driver rideshare cases. Driver looking at the in-app navigation or accepting the next request — phone-record subpoena and app-interaction log become the proof.
Hit-and-run by rideshare driver. Driver flees the scene; platform records and trip data identify the driver.
Common causes
- Driver fatigue from long sessions across multiple apps with insufficient rest.
- Distracted driving — looking at the in-app navigation, accepting the next ride request, communicating with the rider.
- Inadequate driver vetting — background-check gaps that allow drivers with problematic driving records to operate.
- Vehicle-maintenance failures — older or deferred-maintenance vehicles operating commercially.
- Speeding to meet ride demand or surge-pricing windows in violation of CVC §22350.
- DUI in violation of CVC §23152 — punitive-damages exposure under Civil Code §3294.
- Driver inexperience with the streets — drivers from out-of-area unfamiliar with LA-specific dangers (Sepulveda Pass, Topanga Canyon Road, Mulholland Drive).
- Failure to yield at intersections in violation of CVC §21800-21806.
Liability theories
Rideshare liability typically reaches multiple defendants. The standard analysis includes:
- The rideshare or delivery driver — primary negligence under Civil Code §1714 and applicable Vehicle Code sections.
- The platform's commercial-auto carrier — direct policy claim under the applicable period's coverage.
- The platform itself — vicarious-liability theories (common-carrier duty, apparent agency, negligent vetting/retention) survive Proposition 22.
- A third-party at-fault driver — when the rideshare passenger is injured by another vehicle, that driver and their carrier are on the policy stack.
- The vehicle owner if the rideshare driver was operating with permission under CVC §17150.
- The platform's UM/UIM coverage — when the at-fault third-party driver is uninsured or underinsured.
Period identification matters because the coverage limits are dramatically different. Period 1 is $50K/$100K. Periods 2 and 3 are $1 million. We confirm the period from the platform-side trip log before negotiating with the carrier.
How damages break down
Economic damages mirror standard auto-injury analysis: past medical bills (admissible at the lesser-of-billed-or-paid under Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541), future medical care projected by treating physicians, lost earnings, lost earning capacity reduced to present value, and household-services value where the injury affects unpaid work in the home.
Non-economic damages cover pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, and loss of consortium for a spouse. The proof is testimonial — the client, family members, and treating providers.
Punitive damages under Civil Code §3294 are available on clear and convincing evidence of malice, oppression, or fraud — most often in rideshare cases involving DUI drivers, conscious-disregard records by the platform, or knowing vehicle-defect retention.
The $1 million per-incident liability cap on the platform's commercial policy is the practical ceiling for many rideshare cases. Cases with multiple injured occupants or catastrophic single-injury exposure can exceed the cap; the analysis then turns to umbrella policies, the driver's personal assets, and any platform-direct vicarious-liability claim that survives.
Reported settlement and verdict ranges
| Case profile | Reported range | Drivers |
|---|
| Rideshare passenger, soft-tissue injury, full recovery | $45,000 – $135,000 | Liability undisputed in Period 3, conservative treatment course, no permanent impairment. |
| Rideshare passenger, multiple fractures, surgical fixation | $220,000 – $675,000 | Surgical course, hardware retention, partial impairment, lost earnings. |
| Rideshare passenger, traumatic brain injury | $525,000 – $1.4 million | Documented LOC, neuropsych testing showing permanent deficits, vocational impact. |
| Catastrophic single-occupant injury — policy-cap case | $950,000 – $1 million | Limits-tender on platform's $1M commercial policy; underlying medical and life-care plan support a higher demand but the policy controls. |
| Wrongful-death rideshare collision | $1.2 million – $5+ million | CCP §377.60 heirs' claim; high-limit period coverage; punitive exposure if driver was DUI. |
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Each case is evaluated on its own facts and applicable law.
Why work with Burg & Brock
Burg & Brock has worked through the multi-tier rideshare insurance regime since the PUC's TNC framework took effect. The firm coordinates the platform-side litigation hold, the personal-carrier denial letter, and the period-identification work so the case is not stuck in coverage limbo.
The firm tries cases. Rideshare commercial carriers, like all auto carriers, settle differently with firms that file complaints. The settlement value of an LA County rideshare case correlates with the demonstrated willingness of plaintiff's counsel to take the case to a jury verdict.
Burg & Brock works on contingency. There is no fee unless we recover for you. Consultations are free and a lawyer is available twenty-four hours a day on the (888) 528-8595 line.
Steps after a Los Angeles rideshare collision
- Get medical care first. ER evaluation at the closest receiving facility. Document the head, neck, and any specific injury at the first visit so the medical record is complete from day one.
- Screenshot the trip in the app. Before you do anything else, screenshot the trip-receipt screen on your phone. It shows the driver's name, the vehicle, the trip ID, the start time, and the active app period — evidence the platform might later make harder to access.
- Report the incident in-app and to police. Use the in-app Help screen to report the collision (creates a platform record) and call 911 if anyone is hurt or there is significant property damage.
- Photograph the scene and vehicles. Driver's license plate, the rideshare decal in the windshield, the vehicle's exterior, the impact area, the resting position of all vehicles.
- Get the names and contact info of every witness. Including any other passengers in your rideshare and any pedestrians or other-vehicle occupants who saw the collision.
- Do not give a statement to the at-fault driver's carrier. Do not give a recorded statement to any insurance carrier — including the platform's — without counsel.
- Call a lawyer in the first ninety-six hours. Platform-side trip data retention is finite. The litigation hold needs to go out before the records are routinely overwritten.
Where these cases are filed
Most LA County rideshare cases are filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court — Stanley Mosk Courthouse for unlimited civil. Cases against rideshare platforms (Uber Technologies, Lyft, Doordash, Maplebear/Instacart) are typically filed in California Superior Court because the platforms have substantial California operations and personal jurisdiction is clear; some cases involve federal-court removal based on diversity, which Burg & Brock litigates as needed.
Arbitration clauses in the rideshare driver and rider terms-of-service may apply. The enforceability of those clauses against passengers in personal-injury cases has been narrowed in California by case law, particularly post-McGill v. Citibank developments. We analyze the clause at the start and litigate the gateway question of arbitrability when warranted.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between Period 1, Period 2, and Period 3 in a rideshare case?
Period 1 is when the driver has the app on but has not accepted a ride or delivery — the platform provides $50,000 per person / $100,000 per accident / $30,000 property in liability coverage. Period 2 is when the driver has accepted a request and is en route to pick up — coverage jumps to $1 million in liability and $1 million in UM/UIM. Period 3 is when the passenger is in the vehicle (or the package is loaded for delivery) — same $1 million coverage applies. The applicable period is determined from the platform-side trip log, which we obtain by litigation hold.
Can I sue Uber or Lyft directly, or just the driver?
You can pursue the platform under multiple theories. The commercial-auto policy carried by the platform applies directly when Period 2 or 3 was active. Direct-liability theories against the platform — common-carrier duty, apparent agency, negligent vetting and retention, negligent supervision — survive Proposition 22 and remain available depending on the facts. The driver remains personally liable as well. We pursue all available defendants based on the policy stack and the underlying conduct.
I was a passenger in an Uber and another car hit us. Whose insurance pays?
Both. The third-party at-fault driver's carrier is on the primary recovery line. If that driver is uninsured or underinsured, the platform's $1 million UM/UIM policy fills the gap (Period 3). If the platform's driver was partly at fault, the platform's commercial liability also applies. We open all three claim files in the first weeks so nothing is left on the table.
Does Proposition 22 prevent me from suing Uber for the driver's conduct?
No. Proposition 22 confirmed that app-based drivers are independent contractors for purposes of California labor protections. It did not eliminate the platform's direct insurance obligations under the PUC framework or the platform's exposure on common-carrier, apparent-agency, and negligent-vetting theories. The classification matters for some employment-law issues, but the personal-injury recovery routes against the platform remain available.
How long do I have to file a rideshare case in California?
Two years from the date of injury for personal injury and wrongful death under
CCP §335.1. The arbitration clauses in some rideshare terms-of-service may shorten the practical filing window — we analyze the clause at the start so any shorter contractual deadline does not pass.
What if my rideshare driver was DUI?
A DUI rideshare driver case opens both the platform's commercial coverage and a punitive-damages claim under
Civil Code §3294. Punitive exposure changes settlement dynamics; carriers settle DUI cases at higher values when the underlying conduct supports clear-and-convincing-evidence proof of malice. We coordinate with the criminal-court track and pull the BAC results, the police body-cam footage, and any prior DUI history of the driver.
Was my rideshare driver background-checked?
Both Uber and Lyft conduct multi-state criminal and motor-vehicle-record checks before activating drivers. Coverage gaps in those checks have produced negligent-vetting cases. We subpoena the platform's background-check file on the driver and any prior in-app safety-incident reports.
I was driving for Uber and got hit by another car. What coverage applies?
You as the rideshare driver have several recovery routes. First, the third-party at-fault driver's policy (primary). Second, your own UM/UIM coverage if the third party is uninsured. Third — and this is what changes a rideshare-driver case — the platform's $1 million UM/UIM coverage applies during Periods 2 and 3 (and at lower limits in Period 1). Your medical bills can also be covered by Occupational Accident Insurance under Proposition 22 for work-related injuries, with separate filing rules.
What if I was injured making a Doordash or Instacart delivery?
Same multi-tier framework. Doordash and Instacart provide $1 million in third-party liability and $1 million UM/UIM during the active-delivery period (the Period 2/Period 3 equivalent). Off-app or no-active-delivery periods have substantially lower coverage. We pull the dispatch log to confirm the period at impact.
How long does a rideshare case take to resolve?
Typically nine to twenty-four months. The driver is medical stabilization. Cases with platform-side direct-liability theories or arbitration-clause litigation tend to run longer. Cases inside the $1 million policy limit with clear liability often resolve faster once the medical course is documented.
Will my case go to arbitration instead of court?
Possibly. Some rideshare and delivery terms-of-service include arbitration clauses for passenger and driver claims. The enforceability of those clauses in personal-injury cases is fact-specific and contested. We analyze the clause and litigate the gateway question of arbitrability when there are grounds.
How much does it cost to hire Burg & Brock for a rideshare case?
Nothing up front. Burg & Brock works rideshare cases on contingency — paid a percentage of the recovery only if we recover. The percentage is disclosed in the engagement letter. There is no hourly billing, no retainer, and no out-of-pocket cost to the client. Case costs are advanced by the firm and reimbursed from the recovery.
Related practice areas
Related locations
Talk to a Burg & Brock attorney today
No fee unless we recover. Free consultation. Seven California offices, including Sherman Oaks (HQ), Glendale, Beverly Hills, Irvine, Bakersfield, Visalia, and Modesto.
Call (888) 528-8595
Burg & Brock office locations: Sherman Oaks (HQ) — 4554 Sherman Oaks Avenue, Unit A100, Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 · Glendale — 633 N. Central Avenue, Suite 200, Glendale, CA 91203 · Beverly Hills — 9701 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 · Irvine — 7545 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92618 · Bakersfield — 4900 California Avenue, Tower B, 2nd Floor, Bakersfield, CA 93309 · Visalia — 2300 W Whitendale Avenue, Visalia, CA 93277 · Modesto — 1015 12th Street, Suite 4, Modesto, CA 95354. Phone: (888) 528-8595.
