California Senate Bill 371 took effect January 1, 2026 and reduced the mandatory uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage that Uber, Lyft, and other transportation network companies must carry on behalf of their drivers. The minimum dropped from $1 million per incident to $300,000 per incident, with a per-person sublimit of $60,000. Six months in, plaintiff firms with active rideshare inventories have developed adapted practice patterns to recover full compensation under the reduced ceilings.
The Coverage Structure After SB 371
The pre-SB 371 default approach in California rideshare cases was to treat the platform UM/UIM as the principal recovery source for incidents in which the at-fault third party was uninsured or underinsured. The $1 million layer provided sufficient headroom for most catastrophic-injury cases, and stacking analysis was a secondary concern.
The post-SB 371 ceiling is one-third of the prior amount, and the per-person sublimit can be as low as $60,000. Catastrophic-injury cases routinely exceed both numbers. The recovery analysis now requires layered coverage from multiple policies, and the case-selection conversation at intake has to account for whether the layered coverage exists.
Three coverage layers are now relevant in every California rideshare case. The first is the platform UM/UIM as reduced by SB 371. The second is the rideshare driver's personal auto policy, which typically excludes commercial use but may have rideshare-specific endorsements or gap coverage if the driver carried it. The third is any household resident policy that may stack under California's coverage rules.
The Three Operational Periods
Rideshare coverage continues to follow the three-period framework that defined pre-SB 371 practice. Period one runs from app activation to ride acceptance, during which the platform provides limited liability coverage but contingent coverage for third-party claims if the driver's personal policy denies. Period two runs from ride acceptance to passenger pickup, and period three runs from passenger pickup through ride completion. Periods two and three carry the higher platform liability and UM/UIM limits.
Period one remains the operationally messiest because driver personal policies frequently exclude coverage during any commercial activity. Plaintiff firms working period-one cases should request the driver's personal policy declarations sheet and any rideshare-specific endorsement language at the earliest case-development stage. Where the personal carrier denies, the platform contingent coverage applies but at reduced limits, and the case workup proceeds on the platform layer plus any household stacking.
Stacking Personal UM/UIM Above the Platform Layer
California permits stacking of UM/UIM coverage where multiple policies cover the same insured. Plaintiff firms should request all household auto policies at the initial case-development stage, including policies on vehicles the client does not personally own but is named on or is a resident of the household covered by. Each policy may add a UM/UIM layer above the platform coverage.
The order of stacking matters for the analysis. The platform UM/UIM applies first because the rideshare driver is the named insured at the time of the incident. The driver's personal UM/UIM applies next as primary or excess depending on the platform contract language. Household UM/UIM applies above that to the extent the client is a resident relative or otherwise covered.
For passengers, the analysis is different. A passenger who is not a household resident of the rideshare driver receives platform UM/UIM as primary and then looks to their own personal policies and household policies for excess stacking. Passengers who are residents of the driver's household receive coverage under both layers, which is unusual but does occur in family-member rideshare cases.
Case Selection at Intake
The intake interview should now include three questions that were less load-bearing pre-SB 371. First, what personal auto policies does the client carry, including any rideshare endorsements. Second, what household auto policies exist, and what is the client's resident-relative status under each. Third, what employer-provided coverage exists, including any business-auto policy that may extend to the client.
The answers to those questions determine the maximum stacked recovery. Catastrophic-injury cases with no stacked coverage above the SB 371 ceiling now face a hard cap at $300,000 or less, which is insufficient for most surgical or traumatic brain injury fact patterns. Firms taking such cases should be transparent with the client about the ceiling at the signing stage and should consider whether the case justifies the firm's resources at the realistic recovery level.
Motion Practice and Recovery Litigation
Carrier disputes have shifted upward as the platform layer has shrunk. Pre-SB 371, plaintiff firms could often resolve cases within the platform UM/UIM layer without significant motion practice. Post-SB 371, the need to invoke stacked personal and household policies brings additional carriers into the recovery process, and each carrier has its own coverage-investigation timeline and reservation-of-rights posture.
Plaintiff firms should be prepared for declaratory judgment actions on coverage disputes that previously stayed in the negotiation phase. The carriers added to the stacking analysis may dispute the priority of coverage, the application of household exclusions, or the inclusion of business-auto coverage in the recovery layer. The motion practice is more cumulative than novel, but the process timeline is longer than the pre-SB 371 baseline.
Read-Through to Other Reform States
California is not the only state where rideshare coverage minimums have come under legislative pressure. Plaintiff firms operating in multiple states should track similar proposals in jurisdictions where the rideshare industry has lobbied for reduced UM/UIM thresholds. Our ongoing industry news reporting flags state-level coverage-reform proposals as they appear.
Plaintiff firms should also follow the relevant case law on stacking in California, where appellate clarification on post-SB 371 stacking priority is likely to appear before the end of the year. Our case law and settlements coverage will track those decisions as they reach the appellate calendar.
Practical Bottom Line
SB 371 did not eliminate rideshare recovery. It restructured the recovery framework around stacked coverage rather than a single dominant platform layer. Firms that adapt intake scripts, document-request templates, and case-selection thresholds to the new framework will continue to produce strong outcomes for clients. Firms that have not refreshed those internal processes since January 1 should treat this quarter as the operational reset.