UBER’S BIG SECRET
Toronto wants the company’s insurance policy made public, but the tech firm says it’s proprietary information,
In fighting Uber’s request for a court order to keep its insurance policy secret, lawyers for the city of Toronto argue there is overarching public interest at play.
“It’s a sweeping generalization to say they will have a competitor come in,” if details about the ride-hailing app’s insurance policy are made public, city lawyer Michele Wright argued before Superior Court Justice James Diamond on Tuesday.
“Uber is seeking an order to protect their private interests,” she said, noting that details about Uber’s insurance policies in other jurisdictions including California have been made public.
The request for the sealing order comes as part of the city’s application to put a stop to Uber’s operations in Toronto with a permanent injunction.
That case is scheduled to be heard in May.
Uber, a San Francisco-based company now valued at $50.75 billion, has ignored the city’s argument that it must be licensed to operate taxis and limousines in Toronto. It insists it is a technology company that links drivers with riders, and therefore not subject to licensing rules.
Last September, the company began offering UberX rides in Toronto, where individuals driving their personal vehicles can take passengers from point A to point B for a fee, a lower rate than taxis.
The Insurance Bureau of Canada has raised concerns that personal auto policies may not cover drivers who ferry passengers around for pay. Uber has countered that it holds a $6.3-million policy that will kick in if needed.
In developing the UberX service, Uber says it worked seven months
“The (insurance) policy is quite unusual . . . It’s every bit as novel and proprietary as the app itself.” JOHN KEEFE LAWYER FOR UBER
with its broker and insurers to come up with an insurance policy that covers peer-to-peer transportation services.
It wants to keep it under wraps for fear competitors could easily copy it.
“The policy is quite unusual. It’s not a typical off-the-shelf product,” said Uber’s lawyer John Keefe in court, describing it as commercial innovation.
“The insurance policy forms a fundamental component of the new way of doing things,” he added. “It’s every bit as novel and proprietary as the app itself.”
The policy has only been shared with key individuals on a need-toknow basis.
Keefe argued that the company is not seeking to exclude the public from the courtroom, but merely ask- ing that the insurance policy be sealed. While he handed a copy of the document, marked confidential, to Diamond, Keefe noted the policy was only being provided as part of the motion for the sealing order. It has shared a copy with the city for the purposes of Tuesday’s hearing only.
Uber has not decided whether it would submit the insurance policy in response to the injunction hearing if it doesn’t receive the sealing order, he added.
The judge is expected to issue a written decision in the coming weeks.