Soon after launching in 2009 and 2012 respectively, Uber and Lyft became preferred modes of transportation for individuals who lived or worked in areas not served by public transportation or taxis, as well as those who were well-served by either or both but still preferred to use a ridesharing service. Today, designated ridesharing zones at airports, stadiums, condominium and apartment complexes, and other locations show just how ingrained Uber, Lyft, and other lesser-known ridesharing companies have become in our everyday lives.

In 2023, Uber and Lyft provided 9.4 billion and 709 million rides, respectively, across the world. With that many automobile rides, accidents are inevitable. When attorneys are litigating an automobile accident involving a ridesharing vehicle that took place in New Jersey, they should be aware of special insurance provisions regarding those vehicles that are mandated by New Jersey statute.

N.J.S.A. 39:5H-10 addresses insurance coverage for ridesharing companies and their drivers

N.J.S.A. 39:5H-10 requires that (i) a rideshare driver using their personal vehicle to provide rides for a ridesharing service, (ii) a ridesharing service (referred to in the statute as a “transportation network company”), or (iii) any combination of the two, maintain minimum insurance coverage limits.

The statute provides two sets of minimum limits. One is for when a driver is logged into a ridesharing platform, signifying their availability to accept rides. The other is for when the driver is en route to picking up a passenger or has picked them up and is transporting them.

When a ridesharing driver is merely logged into a ridesharing platform, but is not en route to a passenger or transporting a passenger, the statutorily required minimum insurance limits are:

(1)       primary automobile liability insurance in the amount of at least $50,000 for death or bodily injury per person, $100,000 for death or bodily injury per incident, and $25,000 for property damage;

(2)       primary personal injury protection benefits (PIP) that provide coverage amounts selected pursuant to section 4 of P.L.1972, c.70 (C.39:6A-4); and

(3)       uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage to the extent required pursuant to section 2 of P.L.1968, c.385 (C.17:28-1.1).

When a ridesharing driver is en route to a preassigned passenger or is transporting a passenger, the statutorily required minimum insurance limits are:

(1)       primary automobile liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,500,000 for death, bodily injury, and property damage;

(2)       primary automobile insurance for medical payments benefits in an amount of at least $10,000 per person per incident, which shall only apply to and provide coverage for the benefit of the rideshare driver; and

(3)       uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage in an amount of at least $1,500,000.

If there is a lapse in a rideshare driver’s insurance coverage, or their coverage does not meet the statutory minimum, the statute requires their ridesharing service’s insurance to provide the required coverage “beginning with the first dollar of a claim.” The ridesharing company will also have the duty to defend the claim.

In addition, N.J.S.A. 39:5H-10(e) clarifies that coverage under an insurance policy maintained by a ridesharing company shall not depend upon a private passenger automobile insurer first denying a claim. The provision also does not require such an insurer to deny a claim first.

N.J.S.A. 39:5H-10(j) addresses the Verbal Threshold/Limitation on Lawsuit option, codified at N.J.S.A. 39:6A-8, which provides New Jersey consumers the option to select a lower automobile insurance premium in exchange for limiting their rights to seek damages arising out of an automobile accident that injured them. N.J.S.A. 39:5H-10(j) prohibits a ridesharing company or its drivers from asserting that limited right against an individual injured in an accident while in a ridesharing vehicle, including those not receiving personal injury protection benefits.

The enhanced insurance requirements under N.J.S.A. 39:5H-10 provide protection not only to passengers in ridesharing vehicles but also to injured parties in other vehicles involved in an accident with a ridesharing vehicle.

If a ridesharing driver was not responsible for causing an accident, their passenger will be subject to the liability insurance limit of the responsible driver and automobile. That said, the passenger will also be protected by the minimum ridesharing company UM/UIM limit of $1,500,000.

N.J.S.A. 39:5H-10 in action

N.J.S.A. 39:5H-10 provides ridesharing passengers as well as the public greater protection in the event of an automobile accident involving preassigned rides through ridesharing services.

When litigating an automobile accident involving a ridesharing service driver, it is common practice for plaintiffs’ counsel to join as defendants both the driver and the ridesharing service itself. This is usually followed by a request by defense counsel to dismiss the ridesharing service because the insurance coverage is adequate. But plaintiffs’ counsel should not be so quick to agree to that request.

For one, the coverage may not be adequate if the injuries are catastrophic. Second, there may be multiple claimants, which could render the coverage inadequate. Third, if the rideshare driver is merely logged into the system, the coverage per person is only $50,000.

Additionally, plaintiffs’ counsel should also weigh the need to allege respondeat superior liability on the part of a ridesharing company if the coverage required by N.J.S.A. 39:5H-10 is inadequate. Though this area of the law is evolving, in September 2022, Uber and a subsidiary paid the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development’s Unemployment Trust Fund $100 million after an audit revealed the companies improperly classified hundreds of thousands of drivers as independent contractors. Thus, in the appropriate case, it may be advisable to assert a cause of action against a ridesharing company under a theory of respondeat superior.

Though it was enacted in 2017, I’ve been surprised by how many attorneys—on both sides of the aisle—are unaware of N.J.S.A. 39:5H-10 and its provisions. Given that the number of rides we as a society take through ridesharing services is unlikely to materially decrease soon, all attorneys who litigate automobile accidents should familiarize themselves with N.J.S.A. 39:5H-10 so they can better protect their clients.

Michael F. Lombardi is the managing attorney of Lombardi & Lombardi, P.A., a leading New Jersey personal injury, criminal defense, and employment law firm effectively representing the legal needs of its clients since 1975. He can be reached at michaell@lombardiandlombardi.com.

New Jersey’s roads are buzzing–literally. Electric bikes and scooters are zipping through neighborhoods, carving a path toward a greener, more convenient future. A favorite among food delivery drivers and short-distance commuters and errand-runners, “e-bikes” and “e-scooters” are changing how New Jersey pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers share the road. These “micromobility” vehicles, however, are not without their risks. According to a recent University of California San Francisco study, e-bike injuries across the U.S. increased from 751 in 2017 to 23,493 in 2022, and e-scooter injuries rose from 8,566 to 56,847 over that timeframe.

The rapid rise of these vehicles has, to date, outpaced the development of a full regulatory regime in New Jersey. But that appears to be changing. Thanks to recently proposed legislation covering e-bikes and e-scooters, along with a recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision regarding personal injury protection (“PIP”) coverage for e-scooter riders, a fuller regulatory framework is on the horizon.

Current regulation of e-bikes and e-scooters

Today, N.J.S.A. 39:4-14.16 provides the lion’s share of regulations concerning “low-speed” e-bikes and e-scooters. Per N.J.S.A. 39:1-1, “low-speed” e-bikes are bicycles with electric motors that do not provide assistance when the bikes reach a speed of 20 miles per hour. “Low-speed” e-scooters are ones with electric motors “capable of propelling the device with or without human propulsion at a maximum speed of less than 19 miles per hour.”

N.J.S.A. 39:4-14.16(a) permits riders to operate e-bikes and e-scooters on the state’s “streets, highways, roadways, and bicycle paths,” and allows riders to park them on a sidewalk, provided that the vehicle “does not impede the normal movement of pedestrian or other traffic upon the sidewalk.” The statute permits riders to operate e-bikes and e-scooters on bicycle paths, subject to local government entities’ or a state agency’s prohibition on doing so on paths under their jurisdiction. By default, riders cannot operate an e-bike or e-scooter on a trail designated for non-motorized traffic “if such trail has a natural surface tread made by clearing and grading the soil and no surfacing materials have been added.”

N.J.S.A. 39:4-14.16(h) additionally requires e-bikes and e-scooters to be considered “motor vehicles” under 23 U.S.C. § 154, which concerns open alcoholic containers in motor vehicles. However, under N.J.S.A. 39:4-14.16(g), all New Jersey statutes, rules, and regulations applicable to bicycles “shall apply to low-speed electric bicycles and low-speed electric scooters, except those provisions which by their very nature may have no application to low-speed electric bicycles or low-speed electric scooters.”

N.J.S.A. 39:4-14.16(g) is noteworthy for two reasons. First, because it calls for e-bikes and e-scooters to be treated like bicycles, and absent any additional regulations, only riders or passengers under the age of 17 are legally required to wear a safety helmet, per N.J.S.A. 39:4-10.1. This is despite the many e-bikes and e-scooters on the market that can travel faster than 30 miles per hour. Second, N.J.S.A. 39:4-14.1 states that “every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle.” Thus, e-bike and e-scooter drivers have rights and duties above those of pedestrians.

Potential regulation of e-bikes and e-scooters

An interesting omission from N.J.S.A. 39:4-14.16 is that e-bike and e-scooter owners and riders need not own a license to operate them, register them, or insure them. That may change soon.

New Jersey state senators Vin Gopal and Nicholas P. Scutari co-sponsored and introduced Senate Bill No. 2292 in January 2024. This bill would require owners of e-bikes and e-scooters to register them annually with the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission for a fee of $8 each year, and to carry PIP insurance coverage for pedestrians, liability insurance coverage, and uninsured motorist coverage.

The bill has sparked considerable debate and has been met with strong opposition. Proponents argue that the measure increases safety and accountability on the roads, while opponents stress concerns that the bill raises barriers to e-bike/e-scooter accessibility and equitable access to transportation, particularly for low-income individuals.

Opponents point out that the insurance requirement is particularly problematic for those who opt for these vehicles as a cost-effective alternative to car ownership. For these riders, the added financial burden of insurance could negate the economic benefits of choosing an e-bike or e-scooter in the first place, especially when they’re using theirs to earn an income, such as by delivering food for companies like DoorDash, Grubhub, and Uber.

Besides the financial implications, the insurance requirement also raises practical concerns. Currently, there is no insurance product specifically designed for e-bikes and e-scooters in New Jersey. Insurance providers have voiced concerns over the mismatch between existing insurance products and the new law, opining that new products would take years to develop. Given the lack of current offerings, some observers speculate insurers will price e-bike and e-scooter insurance similarly to motorcycle insurance, which is notoriously expensive. This could further deter individuals from using these vehicles, especially those who are already struggling financially.

One solution discussed by safe street advocates is amending New Jersey’s No-Fault Act to cover low-speed e-bikes and e-scooters the same way pedestrians are covered by personal injury insurance provisions. Interestingly, the New Jersey Supreme Court recently issued a decision regarding that issue.

The New Jersey Supreme Court enters the e-bike/e-scooter discussion

This past May, mere months after Senators Gopal and Scutari introduced their e-bikes/e-scooters bill, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled unanimously that e-scooter riders cannot receive PIP benefits under their automobile policies when they’re injured in an accident while riding their e-scooter because they do not fall within the definition of a “pedestrian” under New Jersey’s No-Fault Act.

In Goyco v. Progressive Insurance Company, David Goyco was riding an e-scooter in November 2021 in Elizabeth, New Jersey, when he was struck by a car. At the time, he was insured by Progressive Insurance Co. with a policy that had no-fault coverage. He filed a claim for PIP benefits based on his injuries and corresponding medical expenses. Progressive denied his claim because the e-scooter did not qualify as an automobile under the New Jersey Auto Insurance Law, and he did not meet the definition of a pedestrian.

Goyco filed suit seeking approval of his claim. One of his arguments was that because (as I mentioned above) N.J.S.A. 39:4-14.16(g) provides that e-bikes and e-scooters should be considered the equivalents of a bicycle, and N.J.S.A. 39:6A-2(h) recognizes bicyclists as pedestrians under the state’s No-Fault Act, e-scooter riders should receive PIP benefits under their automobile policies.

The trial court ruled against Goyco, holding that he was not operating a motor vehicle when he was injured nor was he a pedestrian as that term is defined by N.J.S.A. 39:6A-2(h): “any person who is not occupying a vehicle propelled by other than muscular power and designed primarily for use on highways, rails and tracks.” The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s ruling.

The New Jersey Supreme Court, after engaging in traditional statutory interpretation, found that Goyco’s e-scooter was “propelled by other than muscular power” and was “designed primarily for use on highways,” as “highway” is normally broadly defined. Thus, he was not a pedestrian.

Goyco’s policy arguments were equally unpersuasive to the court. It noted that the No-Fault Act had two primary goals: “provid[ing] prompt payment of medical expenses arising from an automobile accident, regardless of fault,” and “contain[ing] the rising cost of automobile insurance premiums.” The court opined that “[e]xpanding the definition of ‘pedestrian’ to include [e-scooter] operators would advance the medical coverage goal but undermine the goal of curbing the rise of insurance costs.” It further noted that the New Jersey Legislature “may certainly choose to expand the availability of PIP coverage to [e-scooter] operators, as they did with motorcycles, but that policy decision and its insurance cost implications, if any, is properly for the legislature, not the court.”

The path ahead for regulation of e-bikes and e-scooters

From Sussex County to Cape May County and everywhere in between, New Jerseyans need only take a brief walk or short drive around their neighborhoods to see just how prevalent e-bikes and e-scooters are. With so many of these vehicles on the road, and so many more likely to join them, it would be shocking if New Jersey did not increase its regulation of them.

Given Senator Gopal and Scutari’s proposed legislation, it is a safe bet that we will see a new registration program for e-bikes and e-scooters. An insurance requirement, however, might be a different story.

Based on the response to that legislation and the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in Goyco, we are likely to see a compromise regarding insuring e-bikes and e-scooters, including perhaps amending the No-Fault Act. The compromise will need to balance (i) protecting e-bike and e-scooter drivers and other people on the road from harm caused by e-bikes, e-scooters, and other vehicles with (ii) the reality that a primary reason so many New Jerseyans have turned to e-bikes and e-scooters is because they offer relatively lower costs of ownership compared to automobiles. Until an affordable insurance option for e-bike and e-scooter owners is available, we are unlikely to see an insurance requirement mandated by New Jersey law.

Nicole Marie Lombardi is an attorney at Lombardi & Lombardi, P.A., a leading New Jersey personal injury, criminal defense, and employment law firm effectively representing the legal needs of its clients since 1975. She can be reached at nicolel@lombardiandlombardi.com.

The New Jersey State Police, multiple fire departments, and emergency medical services units responded Monday to a two-car accident near milepost 69.5 on the New Jersey Turnpike northbound outer roadway.

Both vehicles were on their roofs after flipping during the collision, with no entrapped occupants reported. Officers stated that one of the vehicles was on fire upon arrival. Seven occupants suffered moderate to serious injuries and were transported to a local hospital. No update on their condition has been reported.

Northbound traffic on the New Jersey Turnpike was backed up for approximately two miles north of Exit 8 until the accident was cleared. The Cranbury Police Department is handling the ongoing investigation into the crash and has asked for any witnesses to come forward with information.

Car accidents can occur at any moment and result in serious injuries, costly medical expenses, lost work, and many other losses. Gathering evidence during the accident can be vital to your injury claim. After an accident, if you can, you should report the accident to the police, exchange contact and insurance information with the other driver, photograph everything at the scene, gather statements from witnesses, and retain all records related to the crash and your injuries.

Most importantly, seek medical attention as soon as possible. Not only is a doctor’s report essential for your claim, but you may have suffered a severe internal injury with delayed symptoms that can become life-threatening quickly.

If you have been injured in a car accident caused by someone else, call Lombardi & Lombardi, P.A. at 732-906-1500 or contact us online to schedule a free consultation. Located in Brick, Freehold, Point Pleasant, and Edison, New Jersey, we serve clients throughout the state.