Does Waze qualify as a &quot;share-the-expense carpool&quot;?
<p>Every instance of the word &quot;livery&quot; in my insurance policy's exceptions list is followed by an exemption for &quot;share-the-expense&quot; car pools (i.e. the policy is conventional in that it <strong>does cover</strong> accidents that occur during so-called &quot;share-the-expense&quot; carpooling.)</p>
<p>I know there's <a href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/in-supreme-court/1087662.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">a broad precedent already in-place</a> for what this sort of carpool definition may encompass. But has Waze Carpool <em>per se</em> been tried, and, if so, found lacking in this?</p>
<p>Several Reddit threads (<a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/wazecarpool/comments/d6n3bb/ca_waze_carpool_insurance_coverage/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">[CA] /r/wazecarpool</a>, <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/Insurance/comments/d7gadz/ca_scoop_and_waze_carpool_insurance_am_i_covered/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">[CA] /r/Insurance</a>) have <em>put forth</em> the idea that it'd qualify, but nobody's actually <em>confirmed</em> it.</p>
<p>Waze Carpool <a href="https://www.waze.com/carpool/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">considers itself</a> <em>“…a fresh way to share the road <strong>and the cost</strong> of commuting”</em>, emphasizing that it's a way to  <em>“<strong>Share the cost</strong> of gas and tolls”</em>… but do insurance companies agree?</p>
<hr />
<blockquote>
<h2>PART B - MEDICAL PAYMENTS COVERAGE</h2>
<h3>Exclusions</h3>
<p>We do not provide Medical Payments Coverage for any &quot;insured&quot; for &quot;bodily injury:&quot;</p>
<p>…</p>
<ol start="2">
<li>Sustained while &quot;occupying&quot; &quot;your covered auto&quot; when it is being used as a public or livery conveyance. <strong>This exclusion (2.) does not apply to a share-the-expense car pool.</strong></li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<h2>PART C - UNINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE</h2>
<h3>EXCLUSIONS</h3>
<p>…</p>
<p>B. We do not provide Uninsured Motorists Coverage for &quot;bodily injury&quot; sustained by any &quot;insured:&quot;</p>
<p>…</p>
<ol start="2">
<li>While &quot;occupying&quot; &quot;your covered auto&quot; when it is being used as a public or livery conveyance. <strong>This exclusion (B.2.) does not apply to a share-the-expense car pool.</strong></li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<h2>PART D - COVERAGE FOR DAMAGE TO YOUR AUTO</h2>
<h3>Exclusions</h3>
<p>We will not pay for:</p>
<ol>
<li>Loss to &quot;your covered auto&quot; or any &quot;non-owned auto&quot; which occurs while it is being used as a public or livery conveyance. <strong>This exclusion (1.) does not apply to a share-the-expense car pool.</strong></li>
</ol>
</blockquote>

<p>It is hard to say, because Waze Carpool has some of the elements of a &quot;for hire&quot; arrangement while generally being like a conventional car pool. It <em>is</em> the same as Lyft / Uber in that you contact a central facility <em>ad libitum</em> to get a ride from a semi-random driver. Waze Carpool is more like a public conveyance, where the vehicle is used indiscriminately to transport the public, not limited to certain persons or occasions, so might be excluded on those grounds. But obviously, Waze Carpool is not exactly the same as Lyft: the question is whether the similarity is crucial to the rational behind the exclusion. Waze is different in that the driver was probably going that way anyway, and they aren't doing it for profit. The rationale for non-coverage of ride-for-hire is that the practice significantly increases the insurance company's risk, hence the special rate for Lyft drivers. The rationale for the car-pool exclusion is in part that such use does not increase the insurance companies exposure due to extra driving or driving in worse conditions. It is most likely that Waze Carpool would not be considered a ridesharing enterprise, but an insurance company might decide to make law with a test case. So far, insurance companies haven't announced a Waze exclusion.</p>
<p>The contract clause is potentially open to two interpretations.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>While &quot;occupying&quot; &quot;your covered auto&quot; when it is being used as a
public or livery conveyance. This exclusion (B.2.) does not apply to a
share-the-expense car pool</p>
</blockquote>
<p>could be read as meaning &quot;this exclusion does not apply to a public conveyance which is also a share-the-expense car pool; or it could mean &quot;public conveyances are not covered; share-the-expense car pools are not 'public conveyances'&quot;. It is bedrock certain that livery and public conveyance vehicles are not covered. The second reading is the most natural and the first reading is rather contorted reasoning. (Technically, this the the difference between a restrictive and a non-restrictive modifier, where the former describes a subset of public conveyances). The purpose of that final sentence is to say explicitly that carpools are not &quot;public conveyances&quot;, if you were in doubt.</p>
<p>Under the second reading, the insurance-company favoring position is that Waze is <em>not</em> a carpool (the name assigned by Waze being irrelevant), it is simply a novel form of public conveyance. That is, the insurance company would not just say &quot;Well, since Waze calls it a &quot;carpool&quot;, it's a carpool&quot;, instead they would find those essential properties that make it look like a public conveyance, and then say &quot;Because of this, it's not a carpool&quot;.</p>

united-states insurance new-mexico