It was widely reported that a pedestrian in Arizona was recently struck and killed by an Uber self-driving automobile in the testing stage.
A secondary story to emerge from this tragedy has been about the overall safety of self-driving cars. Some companies have temporarily suspended the testing of their autonomous vehicles; Arizona put the brakes on allowing Uber to test such vehicles on public roads.
|Let's get real
Although automobile manufacturers long ago conquered cruise control, and blind-spot monitoring is an impressive innovation, I'm dubious that drivers will ever be playing Yahtzee on the way to work.
Nonetheless, the talk of safe, self-driving automobiles is so serious that some insurance companies have warned their investors in securities filings that there could be a decrease in demand for auto insurance.
Personally, the idea of driverless cars just makes me want to buy more insurance.
But even if widespread adoption of driverless cars somehow becomes a reality, they surely won't be foolproof. Given their technological complexity, that seems impossible.
And unlike an inconsequential glitch with your office computer, here it will be control, alt, and someone's life is deleted.
In addition to the technology not being without flaws, it will be many years before it is only driverless cars that are on the road. So there will still be plenty of opportunity for human factors to play a large part in automobile safety.
|Courtroom view
Admittedly, I know nothing about the technology that supposedly makes driverless cars feasible and safe. But I do know something about lawyers. Just as day follows night, lawsuits follow car accidents.
Widespread adoption of self-driving automobiles will dramatically alter the landscape for lawsuits following car crashes and the insurance policies that fund the verdicts and settlements.
Right now, when there is an auto accident, it is rare to see the car manufacturer named as a defendant. But when a self-driving automobile is involved, drivers will no longer be fighting over which one had the red light, but whose car is to blame.
However, if the car involved in the accident was designed not to have accidents, it's easy to see the automobile manufacturer and the companies that made the component parts for the self-driving aspect being named as responsible parties in lawsuits for countless automobile accidents.
Accidents that are now simple and quickly resolved will become complex, drawn-out, technological fights between drivers and manufacturers over liability. Car crashes will go from one of the law's simpler problems to complex product-liability litigation.
No matter how safe self-driving automobiles are, the manufacturers of automobiles and their component parts will still find themselves involved in enough cases to be at risk for serious financial consequences.
Unlike at-fault drivers, who often have auto insurance policies with paltry limits, that's not likely to be the case for manufacturers of automobiles and their component parts. This is the plaintiff's lawyer's dream: a deep pocket for every automobile accident.
|Peripheral players
Manufacturers of cars and parts may shrug this off as something that they'll pass on to their insurance companies. But insurers know how to put a price on risk, including their responsibility for the defense of litigation.
Given the claims frequency and severity, the manufacturers may find it cost-prohibitive to go the insurance route. And if the solution is to build this risk factor into the price of the car, which would presumably make it more challenging for manufacturers to sell them.
Technological advances, no matter the convenience, quality of life or lifesaving features that they provide, often come with unintended consequences. But when those consequences include lawyers, they can be particularly troublesome and expensive. Automobile manufacturers, who are racing to get to market with driverless cars, should be careful what they wish for.
Randy Maniloff ([email protected]) is an insurance coverage attorney at White and Williams in Philadelphia. The opinions expressed here are the author's own.
See also:
Want to continue reading?
Become a Free PropertyCasualty360 Digital Reader
Your access to unlimited PropertyCasualty360 content isn’t changing.
Once you are an ALM digital member, you’ll receive:
- Breaking insurance news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
- Weekly Insurance Speak podcast featuring exclusive interviews with industry leaders
- Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
- Critical converage of the employee benefits and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, BenefitsPRO and ThinkAdvisor
Already have an account? Sign In Now
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Randy Maniloff
Randy Maniloff is an attorney with White and Williams, LLP in Philadelphia. He represents insurance companies is disputes involving coverage for numerous types of claims under General Liability and Professional Liability policies. Maniloff publishes Coverage Opinions – a free, bi-weekly electronic insurance coverage newsletter that reports and provides commentary on just-released decisions that concern numerous issues under General Liability and Professional Liability insurance policies. Each issue of Coverage Opinions features an interview with a leading figure in the risk and insurance or legal field. Coverage Opinions interviews have included: Maurice (“Hank”) Greenberg; Alan Dershowitz; Ralph Nader; and Judge Richard Posner. Coverage Opinions began publication in October 2012 and has over 19,000 subscribers. Maniloff is the author of the “Top 10 Coverage Cases of the Year” article for the past thirteen years and the reference book General Liability Insurance Coverage – Key Issues in Every State (Oxford University Press; 2nd Edition 2012).
