Ubder D-Duber fail

The rise of rideshare platforms like Uber and Lyft has created novel liability questions in personal injury litigation, particularly regarding when these companies can be held responsible for accidents involving their drivers. Rideshare companies have consistently argued that their drivers operate as independent contractors rather than employees, seeking to limit their exposure to vicarious liability for accidents occurring when drivers are logged off their platforms. The Second Department’s decision in Uy v Hussein demonstrates that this defense faces significant hurdles when rideshare companies seek summary judgment dismissing personal injury claims.

The scope of employment doctrine traditionally holds employers liable for torts committed by employees while acting within the scope of their employment. This principle reflects policy judgments about risk allocation—placing liability on entities that control and benefit from their workers’ activities. Rideshare companies occupy an ambiguous position in this framework, exercising significant control over how drivers interact with passengers through their apps while simultaneously maintaining that drivers operate as independent contractors outside the company’s control.

Case Background

In Uy v Hussein, a plaintiff injured in a motor vehicle accident sued both the driver (Hussein) and Uber Technologies, Inc. The accident occurred approximately 40 minutes after Hussein had logged off the Uber app. Uber moved for summary judgment, arguing it could not be held liable because Hussein was not acting within the scope of any employment relationship with Uber at the time of the accident. Uber submitted affidavits from both Hussein and an Uber representative stating that Hussein had logged off the app 40 minutes before the accident occurred.

The trial court denied Uber’s motion, finding that questions of fact remained regarding whether Hussein was acting within the scope of employment despite being logged off the app. Uber appealed, arguing that the uncontroverted evidence established Hussein was not engaged in Uber-related activities when the accident occurred, and therefore Uber could not be held vicariously liable under any theory. The Second Department’s analysis focused on whether Uber had eliminated all triable issues of fact regarding scope of employment.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis

Uy v Hussein, 2020 NY Slip Op 05080 (2d Dept. 2020)

“In any event, even considering Hussein’s affidavit, as well as an affidavit submitted in reply by Uber representative Chad Dobbs, which contained essentially the same averments as Hussein’s affidavit, Uber failed to meet its burden. An action may be considered to be within the scope of employment, thus rendering an employer vicariously liable for the conduct, when “the employee is engaged generally in the business of the employer, or if the act may be reasonably said to be necessary or incidental to such employment” (Pinto v Tenenbaum, 105 AD3d 930, 931). Whether an employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment is generally a question of fact for the jury (see Camisa v Rosen, 150 AD3d 809, 810-811).

Here, contrary to Uber’s contention, the averments of Hussein and Dobbs that Hussein had logged off of the Uber app 40 minutes before the accident were simply insufficient, without more, to eliminate all questions of fact as to whether Hussein was acting within the scope of his alleged employment with Uber at the time of the incident”

Add this to the Postmates case from March 2020 and the California Court’s examination of the Uber issue and it looks like Uber et. al. cannot escape liability. Why is this important? In most states, Uber et. al. writes $1m in third-party coverage when an MVA occurs when someone is on the app. In New York City, the coverage is limited to $100k since the vehicles are considered liveries. So now, Uber vehicles have brought back a dangerous analogue of the pre-Graves cases for rentals. Also, in Long Island and upstate, the Court has actually expanded liability beyond the on and off the App through citing my name sake, Tenenbaum,

Uber D’duber!

Legal Significance

The Second Department’s decision in Uy v Hussein establishes several important principles governing rideshare company liability. First, the court held that merely showing a driver had logged off the rideshare app does not automatically eliminate questions of fact regarding scope of employment. The determination of whether an employee was acting within the scope of employment “is generally a question of fact for the jury,” particularly when reasonable minds could differ about whether the conduct was “necessary or incidental to” the employment relationship.

Second, the decision applies the broad standard articulated in Pinto v Tenenbaum, 105 AD3d 930 (2d Dept. 2013), which holds that conduct may be within the scope of employment when “the employee is engaged generally in the business of the employer, or if the act may be reasonably said to be necessary or incidental to such employment.” This expansive definition creates space for arguments that rideshare drivers remain within scope of employment even during periods when they are not actively transporting passengers or awaiting ride requests through the app.

Third, the court signaled skepticism toward accepting self-serving affidavits as sufficient to establish absence of scope of employment as a matter of law. Uber submitted affidavits from both the driver and an Uber representative stating the driver had logged off 40 minutes before the accident. The Second Department found these averments “insufficient, without more, to eliminate all questions of fact” regarding scope of employment. This holding suggests courts will require substantial evidence beyond mere statements about app status to grant summary judgment in rideshare liability cases.

Practical Implications

For plaintiffs injured in accidents involving rideshare drivers, Uy v Hussein provides a roadmap for opposing summary judgment motions based on independent contractor status or app-logged-off arguments. The decision establishes that rideshare companies bear a heavy burden when seeking dismissal on scope of employment grounds, and that simple evidence of app status will not suffice to eliminate factual questions warranting jury determination.

The decision has particularly significant implications given the insurance coverage structure governing rideshare operations in New York. In most states, Uber and similar companies provide $1 million in third-party liability coverage when drivers are actively using the app. However, New York City treats rideshare vehicles as liveries, limiting coverage to $100,000. This creates a coverage gap similar to the pre-Graves Amendment situation with rental car companies, where injured plaintiffs faced insufficient insurance to cover serious injuries.

For defendants—both rideshare companies and their drivers—the decision highlights the difficulty of obtaining early dismissal from rideshare accident litigation. Companies seeking to limit their exposure must develop more robust evidence showing that drivers’ activities at the time of accidents bore no relationship to their rideshare activities. Merely establishing that the app was logged off will not suffice.

The decision also has broader implications for how courts analyze employment relationships in the gig economy. As more companies structure their workforces around app-based platforms and independent contractor classifications, courts will increasingly confront questions about when these companies face vicarious liability for their workers’ torts. Uy v Hussein suggests that courts will not readily accept companies’ characterizations of these relationships at face value, instead examining the substance of the relationship and the circumstances of particular incidents.

For insurance carriers providing coverage to rideshare companies and their drivers, this decision creates uncertainty about when coverage applies and which policy responds to particular accidents. The ambiguity regarding scope of employment translates directly into coverage disputes, as carriers seek to determine whether accidents fall within app-based coverage periods or personal auto policy coverage.

Related Articles

• Uber-D-Duber- Whoa!
• Independent contractor defense proven
• The first application of the new precludable independent contractor rule
• The independent contractor “defense” is sufficient to non-suit a plaintiff under CPLR 3211(a)(7)