Genzer sued James River under the assertion that it's denial of uninsured motorist coverage under the 100 Policy breached its contractual obligations. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of James River. Genzer appealed to the Tenth Circuit.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed, and concluded that the provision of the 100 Policy's covered auto endorsement which Genzer used to claim uninsured motorists coverage under was not ambiguous and that her claim fell outside of the scope.

The circuit court found that the provision in the 100 Policy plainly determined that coverage concluded when the passenger reached her final destination and fully exited the vehicle with her belongings, and added that although intervening stops en route to the destination are included, the coverage stops at the last passenger's destination.  

Genzer argued that part of the policy contemplated coverage for "the entire route" that she "had to take, as a practical matter, to accomplish her task" including the journey from the drop-off point to her starting location, and found that the interpretation was "inconsistent with" the provision's "plain meaning." The court emphasized the provision in the policy described the final destination as the passenger's "requested transportation services."

Genzer argued that "including, but not limited to dropping off passengers" meant that there was the intention of covering something other than dropping off passengers. The court agreed that the quoted language included stops along the way to visit a drive-thru or convenience store, but that "traveling to the final destination of the requested transportation services" clearly ends the coverage at the official drop-off point of the final passenger.

The circuit court finally points out that if the drafters of the policy intended for coverage to apply for return journeys, they would have incorporated that language into the policy as they incorporated other similar language into the policy. The court concluded that Genzer was covered under subpart (a)(2) from the time when she accepted the ride until she dropped off the rider at their final destination in Woodward, and that the 100 Policy did not provide coverage for the injuries that she sustained in the accident during her return journey.

Editor's Note: An Uber driver who takes a ride that has a destination far from the popular ride areas will often find themselves without a rider for the return trip. This means that drivers who accept trips that are far away will often only be covered by their own insurance, unless they can find a rider who needs a trip into the city. The provisions in these two insurance policies were specifically crafted by Uber and its insurer to ensure that their coverage is only applicable when the drivers are specifically working for Uber, not in-between rides. Uber requires all of their drivers to have their own car insurance, the policies that Uber has in place are supposed to be supplemental to the drivers own insurance, but only while the app is on.

Individuals who use their personal vehicle to provide ridesharing services should make sure to disclose that use to their insurer so they can ensure they will have coverage for any claim that arises outside of the normal use of the vehicle.