SB 371 Explained: How California's Rideshare Insurance Law Affects Accident Victims

Rideshare has become such a routine part of daily transportation that most passengers never think twice about the insurance coverage sitting behind their trip, until an accident happens. California SB 371 rideshare insurance law, enacted in September 2025, changed the coverage landscape significantly, and understanding what shifted matters for anyone who could end up in a rideshare accident, as a passenger, a driver, or another motorist on the road.

What SB 371 Actually Changed

Before this legislation, California required rideshare companies to carry coverage up to $1 million during periods when a driver had a passenger in the vehicle or was en route to pick one up. SB 371 reduced that mandatory threshold considerably, down to $60,000 per person, a change that reshaped how much protection is automatically available to someone injured in a covered rideshare trip.

This adjustment did not eliminate rideshare insurance requirements altogether. Coverage still applies during active trips and the period when a driver is logged into the app awaiting a match, but the dollar amount guaranteed at the higher end of that spectrum is now substantially smaller than it was before the law took effect.

Understanding Rideshare Accident Coverage Limits

Rideshare accident coverage limits in California have always operated on a tiered structure depending on the driver's app status at the time of a crash. A driver with the app off typically relies on their own personal auto policy. A driver logged in but without a matched ride generally has a lower company-provided coverage tier. A driver actively transporting a passenger or en route to one falls under the highest tier, the one SB 371 directly affected.

Why UM/UIM Insurance California Coverage Matters More Now

With the reduced cap, uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage, UM/UIM insurance California drivers and passengers carry on their own personal policies, has taken on greater importance for rideshare users. If damages from a serious rideshare accident exceed the new $60,000 per-person threshold, a passenger's own UM/UIM coverage, where available and adequate, may be the difference between recovering full compensation and absorbing a significant financial shortfall.

This dynamic has prompted many personal injury attorneys handling rideshare cases to review a client's full insurance picture more closely from the outset, since the rideshare company's policy alone may no longer reliably cover the full extent of serious injuries the way it more often did under the prior $1 million standard.

Uber and Lyft Insurance Requirements Under the New Framework

Uber Lyft insurance requirements in California still mandate liability coverage during active trips, but the reduced ceiling means that catastrophic injury cases, those involving long-term disability, extensive future medical care, or wrongful death, are now more likely to approach or exceed available coverage than they were previously. Both companies have continued to comply with the revised statutory minimum since the law took effect.

How California's Approach Compares to Other States

Before SB 371, California's $1 million rideshare coverage requirement stood out as one of the higher thresholds nationally, with many other states requiring lower minimums for the active-trip period. The new $60,000 per-person cap brings California closer in line with a broader range of state approaches, though it remains higher than the bare-minimum liability requirements some states impose on standard personal auto policies.

This national variation matters for rideshare companies operating across state lines, and for attorneys handling cases involving drivers or passengers who reside in a different state than where an accident occurred, since the applicable coverage framework can depend on multiple jurisdictional factors rather than a single uniform national standard.

Practical Steps for Accident Victims After a Rideshare Crash

Anyone injured in a rideshare accident in California should document the driver's app status at the time of the crash as early as possible, since this detail determines which coverage tier applies and directly affects the maximum compensation realistically available from the rideshare company's policy under the current framework.

• Screenshot or otherwise document the rideshare app's trip status immediately after the accident.
• Seek prompt medical evaluation and keep thorough records of all treatment received.
• Identify and document all potentially applicable insurance policies, not just the rideshare company's.
• Consult an attorney before accepting any settlement offer, particularly for more serious injuries.

How Attorneys Are Adjusting Case Evaluation Strategy

Personal injury attorneys handling rideshare cases in California have adjusted their intake and case evaluation processes to account for the new landscape, prioritizing early identification of a client's own UM/UIM coverage and other supplemental policies that could apply if damages approach or exceed the reduced $60,000 threshold.

This more thorough upfront coverage analysis has become a standard part of case strategy for firms handling serious rideshare injury claims, since waiting until later in the case to discover a coverage shortfall can significantly complicate settlement negotiations and limit available options.

Arguments Supporting the Change

Supporters of SB 371 have generally argued that the previous $1 million requirement was disproportionate to typical claim values, that lower mandated coverage could reduce operating costs that get passed through to riders and drivers, and that the change aligns California more closely with coverage structures in other states that never required a comparably high rideshare-specific threshold.

Arguments Opposing the Change

Critics, including many personal injury rideshare accidents attorneys and consumer advocates, have raised concerns that a $60,000 cap is inadequate for the kind of serious injuries, spinal trauma, traumatic brain injury, or multi-vehicle collisions, that rideshare accidents can produce, potentially leaving badly injured victims without a realistic path to full compensation absent substantial personal UM/UIM coverage.

• Supporters cite alignment with coverage norms in other states and potential cost savings.
• Critics warn the new cap may be insufficient for catastrophic injury cases.
• Both sides agree the change increases the practical importance of a rider's own UM/UIM coverage.
• Attorneys are adjusting case evaluation and settlement strategy to account for the lower ceiling.

What This Means for a Personal Injury Claim After a Rideshare Accident

For attorneys and injured claimants alike, SB 371 makes it more important than ever to identify every available source of coverage early in a case, the rideshare company's policy, the driver's personal policy where applicable, the claimant's own UM/UIM coverage, and any other at-fault party's insurance in a multi-vehicle crash, rather than assuming the rideshare company's coverage alone will be sufficient.

This shift has also increased the value of thorough case evaluation at intake, since identifying a client's personal UM/UIM coverage early can materially change both case strategy and the realistic range of achievable compensation in a serious rideshare accident claim.

The Broader Debate Over Rideshare Regulation

SB 371 arrived amid a wider, ongoing debate over how rideshare companies should be regulated relative to traditional taxi and livery services, which have historically operated under different, often less stringent, insurance frameworks in many jurisdictions. Some observers view the reduced threshold as part of a broader effort to align rideshare regulation more closely with these traditional transportation categories.

Others argue that rideshare platforms' scale and role as a dominant mode of urban transportation warrant coverage standards that exceed, rather than merely match, older regulatory frameworks built around a smaller, more localized taxi industry. This tension between innovation-friendly regulation and consumer protection continues to shape rideshare policy debates well beyond California's borders.

Looking Ahead

Whether SB 371 remains in its current form, is amended, or faces further legislative or legal challenges remains to be seen, and firms handling rideshare accident cases in California should stay current on any subsequent developments that could affect coverage requirements going forward.

For accident victims navigating this changed landscape, understanding exactly which coverage tier applied at the time of a crash, and what personal coverage might supplement it, is now a foundational step in evaluating a rideshare injury claim, one best undertaken with guidance from counsel experienced in this evolving area.