California does not have separate rules for Lyft and Uber. Both are transportation network companies under Public Utilities Code section 5433, and the required insurance depends on the driver’s app status at the moment of the crash rather than on which app they were using. Two things being published about Lyft coverage are worth correcting before you rely on them. The statute says the coverage required while a driver has the app on but has not accepted a ride “shall be primary,” not contingent on a personal insurer denying the claim first. And the million-dollar uninsured motorist figure widely quoted for rideshare passengers has been reduced by recent legislation.
Both corrections matter for the same reason: they change who you claim against and how much is available. This page explains the framework, the two errors, and what evidence actually establishes a claim. To discuss a rideshare crash, call our San Mateo office at 650-250-0705.
Key Takeaways
- Lyft and Uber claims run on the same statute. The app makes no legal difference; the driver’s app status does.
- Section 5433 requires the Period 1 coverage to be primary, which is not the same as coverage that only responds if a personal insurer declines.
- From acceptance of a ride request until the ride is complete, one million dollars in primary commercial liability is required.
- The uninsured motorist requirement for rideshare passengers has been reduced. Verify the current figure rather than relying on what is published.
- App status is proved with platform data, so preservation has to reach Lyft and not only the driver’s insurer.
The Framework Applies to Lyft and Uber Alike
California regulates rideshare operators as transportation network companies through the California Public Utilities Commission, and the insurance requirements are set by Public Utilities Code section 5433 and the Commission’s decisions. Nothing in that framework is company-specific. A Lyft claim and an Uber claim are assessed identically.
| Driver status | What the framework requires |
| App off | Outside the framework entirely. The driver’s personal auto policy is the relevant coverage, and personal policies commonly exclude commercial use, which can create a dispute of its own. There is no numbered “period” for this; the statute simply does not reach it. |
| Period 1 — app on, no ride accepted | Primary coverage of at least $50,000 for death and personal injury per person, $100,000 per incident, and $30,000 for property damage. The Commission also requires an excess layer of at least $200,000 per occurrence. |
| Periods 2 and 3 — acceptance of a ride request through completion of the ride | $1,000,000 in primary commercial liability for death, personal injury, and property damage. |
| Uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage while a passenger is in the vehicle | Required, but the amount has been reduced by recent legislation. See below, and do not rely on the figure published elsewhere. |
Correction One: “Primary” Is Not “Contingent”
Google’s AI Mode answer for this search presents Lyft’s Period 1 coverage as “Contingent Lyft Liability” that “kicks in if personal insurance denies the claim.” Other pages describe it similarly.
Section 5433 says the opposite. The statute provides that transportation network company insurance for that period “shall be primary” in the stated amounts. Primary means it responds first, not after another insurer has been approached and has refused.
The distinction is not academic. If you accept the contingent framing, the sequence looks like: claim against the driver’s personal insurer, wait for a denial, then approach the platform. If the coverage is primary, that detour is unnecessary and the delay it causes can be substantial at exactly the point where medical bills are arriving.
There is a genuine complication behind the confusion. The statute allows the requirement to be satisfied in more than one way, including through insurance maintained by the driver, insurance maintained by the company, or a combination. So which policy actually pays can involve a verification step. But that is a question about which primary policy responds, not about whether the platform’s obligation is contingent on a denial.
Correction Two: The Uninsured Motorist Figure
For years the framework required one million dollars in uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage while a passenger was in the vehicle. That is what most pages still publish, and it appears in Google’s AI answers for both Lyft and Uber searches.
Legislation has reduced it. An Assembly Insurance Committee analysis of a 2025 bill describes the change as reducing rideshare uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage from one million dollars to a substantially lower per-person and per-incident amount, while leaving the one-million-dollar primary liability requirement intact. The current text of section 5433 available through published code services also shows a materially lower uninsured motorist figure.
This page does not give you a number, because the available sources differ and there has been more than one proposal in this area. Stating an amount that turns out to be superseded would be worse than saying nothing, since this is the figure that determines whether a serious injury is covered when the at-fault driver has no insurance.
What we can say: if you have read that a rideshare passenger has a million dollars of uninsured motorist coverage available, verify it before relying on it. The primary liability requirement and the uninsured motorist requirement are separate things, and only one of them has stayed put.
What Evidence Is Actually Needed
This is one of the questions Google surfaces alongside this search, and it has a concrete answer, because coverage turns on a fact that is not in a police report.
Platform records are the core. Trip data, app logs, GPS data, and driver status history establish which period applied. Only Lyft holds them, and they arrive through a preservation demand and, if contested, formal discovery. A preservation demand therefore needs to go to the platform, not only to the driver’s insurer.
Your own records matter more than people expect. If you were a passenger, the ride receipt, in-app trip history, driver and vehicle details, and the trip identifier all help establish that a ride was in progress. Screenshot them rather than assuming they will still be accessible later.
Beyond app status, the ordinary evidence still applies: the police report, photographs of both vehicles and the scene before anything moves, the other driver’s identity and insurance, witness details, and prompt medical records that connect the mechanism to the injuries.
Report through the app in addition to anything done at the scene. It creates a record with a timestamp.
Who You May Actually Be Claiming Against
More parties are usually in play than in an ordinary collision:
- The Lyft driver, whose conduct is the starting point.
- Another motorist, where the Lyft vehicle was struck rather than at fault. If you were a passenger this matters: the claim may run against that driver first, with the platform’s coverage relevant only where their limits are insufficient.
- The platform’s insurer, through the period framework.
- The driver’s personal insurer, where the app was off, subject to commercial-use exclusions.
- A public entity, where a roadway condition contributed. That claim requires a written claim to the entity within six months under Government Code section 911.2, before any lawsuit, which is far shorter than the two years to sue a driver.
- A vehicle or component manufacturer, where something on the vehicle failed.
Our California Uber and Lyft accident page covers the practice generally, and our car accident page covers the underlying collision claim.
If You Were Driving for Lyft
A rideshare driver injured in a crash is in a different position from a passenger, and it is handled poorly almost everywhere. The platform’s coverage is structured principally around third parties and passengers, a personal auto policy may exclude commercial use, and classification questions affect what else might be available. Which of those applies depends on the period, the policy wording, and the facts. That is a reason to get advice early rather than assume the platform’s coverage handles it.
Deadlines
| Situation | General rule | Source |
| Suing a driver or other private party | Two years from the injury | Code Civ. Proc., § 335.1 |
| Where a public entity may be responsible | A written claim generally must be presented within six months | Gov. Code, § 911.2 |
| A claim under your own uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage | Its own timing, set by statute and your policy, potentially much shorter | Ins. Code, § 11580.2, and your policy |
Our guide to the California personal injury statute of limitations covers the full picture, including the government claim sequence and what does not pause the clock.
Rideshare Claims in San Mateo County
Our office at 15 North Ellsworth Avenue, Suite 105, San Mateo, CA 94401 works with injured people across the Peninsula. Civil cases here are handled by the Superior Court’s Civil Division at the Hall of Justice, 400 County Center, Redwood City.
Airport and commute trips mean a high share of local rideshare miles are on US-101 and I-280 at speed. And where a road surface contributed, which agency is responsible is genuinely not obvious: a stretch of El Camino Real is a state highway while the street a block away is a city responsibility. More about the office is on our San Mateo page.
How Vaksman Khalfin Can Help
On a Lyft claim specifically, Vaksman Khalfin, PC can send preservation demands to the platform as well as to the insurers, establish the driver’s app status from trip and log data, identify which period applies and therefore what coverage is available, press the primary nature of the Period 1 requirement rather than accepting a contingent framing, verify the current uninsured motorist requirement rather than relying on a published figure, identify every other responsible party including another motorist or a public entity, present a government claim within its window where one applies, and handle the platform’s insurer so you are not doing it while recovering.
The firm’s California personal injury practice is led by Alan D. Khalfin, admitted in California. Rideshare matters are handled on a contingency-fee basis: there is no upfront attorney’s fee, and attorney’s fees are owed only if there is a recovery. Case costs are a separate category from attorney’s fees, and how they are handled, including whether you may be responsible for them, is set out in the written fee agreement reviewed with you before anything is signed.
To discuss a crash, call 650-250-0705 or schedule a free consultation. Bring your ride receipt if you have it.
Reviewed by Alan D. Khalfin, Partner and Managing Attorney, Vaksman Khalfin, PC (admitted in California). Last reviewed: 09/28/2026
Frequently Asked Questions
You can bring a claim, and whether it reaches the platform's insurance depends on the driver's app status at the moment of the crash. California regulates Lyft and Uber identically as transportation network companies under Public Utilities Code section 5433: comparatively modest primary coverage with the app on but no ride accepted, and one million dollars in primary commercial liability from acceptance of a ride request until the ride is complete. Establishing which period applied is usually the first task.
Platform records are the core, because app status is not recorded in a police report. Trip data, app logs, GPS data, and driver status history establish which period applied, and only Lyft holds them, so a preservation demand needs to go to the platform. Your own ride receipt, in-app trip history, and screenshots of the driver and vehicle details help establish that a ride was in progress. Beyond that, the ordinary evidence applies: the police report, photographs before anything moves, the other driver's insurance, witnesses, and prompt medical records.
Not according to the statute. Section 5433 provides that transportation network company insurance for the period when the app is on but no ride has been accepted "shall be primary." Google's AI answer for this search describes that coverage as contingent, kicking in only if personal insurance denies the claim, which is a materially different thing. The statute does allow the requirement to be met through a policy held by the driver, by the company, or a combination, so which primary policy responds can involve verification. That is different from the obligation being contingent on a denial.
The required coverage exists, and what is available depends on the period. But "does Lyft compensate" is the wrong frame: you are dealing with an insurer applying policy terms and a statutory framework, not with a company deciding to be fair. An early offer is made before anyone has projected future care, and it resolves the claim in full.
Most civil claims of any kind resolve before trial, and rideshare claims are no exception. That said, app status disputes and coverage arguments are litigated more often than a straightforward collision, because the evidence that settles them sits with the platform and arrives through formal discovery.
Treat it with caution. That was the requirement for years and is still widely published, including in Google's AI answers, but legislation has reduced it. An Assembly Insurance Committee analysis of a 2025 bill describes the reduction, and the code text available through published services shows a materially lower amount. Because the sources differ, this page does not state a current figure. Verify it before relying on it, because it is the number that matters when the at-fault driver has no insurance.
A different and less well covered situation. The platform's coverage is structured principally around third parties and passengers, a personal policy may exclude commercial use, and classification questions affect what else may be available. Which applies depends on the period, the policy wording, and the facts, so get advice early rather than assuming the platform's coverage handles it.
Not legally. Both are transportation network companies under the same statute and the same Commission decisions, and the analysis is identical. What differs between them is operational: how each app records and surfaces trip data, and which insurer is behind the coverage in a given period. Neither changes what you have to establish.
Most claims against a driver or other private party must be filed within two years under Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1. Where a public entity may be responsible, a written claim generally must be presented within six months under Government Code section 911.2. A claim under your own uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage has its own timing under Insurance Code section 11580.2 and your policy.
