Houston Uber & Lyft Accident Lawyer

That depends on the phase the app was in, and the gap between phases is enormous. If the driver had accepted your ride and it was under way, § 1954.053 requires a policy with a total aggregate limit of $1 million per incident. If the driver was logged on and waiting for a request but not yet on a ride, § 1954.052 drops the minimum to $50,000 per person and $100,000 per incident. If the app was off entirely, it is an ordinary personal auto claim that may carry only the $30,000 Texas minimum. Establishing the phase, with timestamps, is therefore the single most valuable early step in the case.

The coverage attaches to the driver's activity rather than to who was hurt, so a passenger in the rideshare vehicle, the occupants of another car, a cyclist and a pedestrian can all look to the same policy if the driver was at fault in that phase. A passenger has one structural advantage: passengers are essentially never apportioned responsibility for the collision, so the § 33.001 argument that dominates driver-versus-driver disputes does not touch them. If another motorist caused the crash instead, the claim runs against that motorist first, with the rideshare policy's UM/UIM component potentially in reserve.

Because it sets the boundary of the $1 million layer. Section 1954.001(3) defines it as transportation provided by a driver to a rider, beginning when the driver accepts a ride requested through the company's digital network and ending when the last requesting rider departs the vehicle. It expressly excludes shared-expense carpools and taxi or limousine services. So the ride begins at acceptance — not at pickup — which means a driver en route to collect a passenger is already inside the higher coverage layer. That distinction is frequently disputed and it is resolved by the company's own trip data.

The company's trip record, which is the authoritative source and is held entirely by Uber or Lyft. It contains the acceptance timestamp, GPS breadcrumbs, the pickup and drop-off events, and the trip identifier. A passenger has an advantage here because the trip appears in their own app history with a receipt and a map — screenshot it immediately, because account histories are not permanent and are outside your control. For a third party struck by a rideshare driver, obtaining that data usually requires a formal request or a subpoena, which is why identifying the company and the driver at the scene matters.

Report it in the app as well as to police, because the in-app report creates a company-side record with a timestamp. Screenshot your trip history and receipt before anything else. Photograph the vehicle, its plate, and the driver's licence and insurance if they will show it — § 550.023 requires a driver to give name, address, registration and the name of their liability insurer. Get witness details. Then get medical attention the same day. If you were a passenger, note whether the trip had actually begun in the app or the driver was still en route, because that fact sets the coverage layer.

Usually to the company's insurer, because during a ride the required cover is carried by the driver, by the company on the driver's behalf, or by a combination (§ 1954.051(d)), and in practice the large layer is company-arranged. Both Uber and Lyft operate claims intake through their apps and websites, which is the normal route. The driver's personal insurer may decline entirely, since § 1954.151 permits personal auto policies to exclude coverage while the driver is logged on — so an early denial from the personal carrier is expected and is not the end of the claim.

Ordinarily Harris County, at the Harris County Civil Courthouse, 201 Caroline Street, Houston, TX 77002. Rideshare cases raise an additional question most car cases do not: the relationship between the driver and the company, and whether the company bears responsibility beyond the insurance it is required to arrange. Terms of service, arbitration provisions and the driver's contractual status all become relevant, which makes these matters more document-driven at the outset than a simple two-car collision.

Only when the app is off. Once the driver logs on, § 1954.052 sets the waiting-phase minimums and § 1954.151 allows the personal policy to exclude coverage for that period, which is exactly why the phase question dominates. The practical consequence is that a driver who was on their way home with the app closed is an ordinary motorist whose policy may be the statutory minimum of $30,000 per person — and in that scenario your own uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage becomes the realistic source for a serious injury.

Two years from accrual under § 16.003(a), or two years from the date of death under § 16.003(b). But the deadlines that bite first are contractual and practical rather than statutory: the company's claims process has its own reporting expectations, your own policy has notice and cooperation conditions if UM/UIM comes into play, and the trip data and any dashcam footage are subject to retention cycles. Preserving the electronic record in the first weeks matters more here than in almost any other kind of motor claim, because none of it is in your possession.

Because Texas expressly permits it. Section 1954.151 authorises personal automobile policies to exclude coverage while the driver is logged on to the network or engaged in a prearranged ride, and § 1954.152 provides that a driver is not required to maintain personal cover for those periods. So a denial from the personal carrier is the system working as designed rather than bad faith, and the answer is to pursue the company-arranged layer that § 1954.051 requires. A denial letter from the personal insurer is actually useful evidence of which phase the parties accept was in play.

Because the contractual status affects claims beyond the statutory insurance — vicarious liability, and any argument that the company itself was negligent in screening, monitoring or dispatching. The statutory coverage in Chapter 1954 applies regardless of that label, so the $1 million layer during a prearranged ride does not depend on winning the employment argument. Where the status matters is when the loss exceeds the available cover, or where the claim is that the company's own conduct contributed. Those are fact-intensive questions that turn on the actual degree of control, not on the wording of the agreement.

Usually through a formal preservation demand followed by discovery or a subpoena, because the data belongs to the company and there is no consumer-facing route for a third party. That is why the scene details matter so much for someone struck by a rideshare driver: the vehicle plate, the driver's name, any visible trade dress, and the exact time. With those, the company can identify the trip. Without them, establishing that the vehicle was even on the network can become a contested threshold issue before anyone reaches the question of which coverage phase applied.

Both the waiting phase and the ride phase require uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage where § 1952.101 requires it, so the rideshare policy generally carries a UM component in addition to liability. That matters when the at-fault party is a third driver with little or no insurance rather than the rideshare driver. Your own personal UM/UIM may also respond depending on your policy and your status. Where several policies could apply, the order in which they are pursued affects the outcome, and it is worth mapping all of them before making a claim on any one.

The governing law is different. Chapter 1954 of the Insurance Code and Chapter 2402 of the Occupations Code apply specifically to transportation network companies and their drivers using personal vehicles connected through a digital network. The definition in § 1954.001(2) of a "personal vehicle" expressly excludes taxicabs, limousines and similar for-hire vehicles, which are regulated separately and carry commercial cover under a different framework. So the phase-based coverage structure that dominates an Uber or Lyft claim simply does not arise in a taxi case.