Assemblyman Greg Hafen has introduced a new bill, Assembly Bill 311 (AB311), that could change the way ride-share drivers are insured.
Supporters say it’s about protecting drivers and passengers. But critics warn it could drive up costs, put people out of work, and follow California’s failed policies.
What’s in the Bill?
AB311 would force ride-share drivers to carry more insurance.
Specifically, it requires coverage for medical payments and uninsured/underinsured motorists. This means if a ride-share driver gets hit by an uninsured driver, their insurance must cover the costs—even if it’s not their fault.
The bill also stops insurance companies from denying coverage to drivers just because they work for a ride-share company like Uber or Lyft.
Why Supporters Like It
Backers of the bill argue it’s about fairness and protection. They say passengers should have guaranteed coverage in an accident.
They also believe insurance companies shouldn’t be allowed to refuse coverage just because someone drives for Uber or Lyft.
Some consumer advocates support the measure, claiming it will help accident victims get medical care and financial relief faster.
Why Critics Say It’s a Bad Idea
Opponents, including Uber and Lyft, see it differently.
They say the bill would raise costs for drivers—many of whom are already struggling with gas prices and inflation.
A similar law in California caused a sharp increase in ride-share insurance costs.
Some California drivers saw their premiums jump by hundreds of dollars per year. Critics say that same problem will hit Nevada if AB311 becomes law.
Uber and Lyft have both opposed similar mandates in other states. Their argument?
Drivers already have insurance, and their companies provide coverage when drivers are on the job. This new requirement, they say, is unnecessary and expensive.
California’s Failure: A Warning Sign?
Nevada may be following in California’s footsteps.
In 2023, California passed a similar mandate. The result? Higher costs, fewer drivers, and longer wait times for riders.
Many drivers in California quit because they couldn’t afford the new insurance costs. Fewer drivers meant longer wait times for passengers and higher ride fares.
Nevada critics warn the same thing could happen here.
Who Benefits from AB311?
Some insurance companies might. If all ride-share drivers are forced to buy extra insurance, insurers could see a surge in new policies.
There’s also a question of enforcement.
If Uber and Lyft decide Nevada’s rules are too strict, they could cut back service—just like they’ve done in some cities with tough regulations.
The Bigger Picture
This bill fits a pattern. Government regulations that sound good on paper often have unintended consequences.
Supporters may claim AB311 helps protect drivers and passengers.
But the reality is it could make ride-sharing more expensive, force drivers off the road, and hurt the very people it claims to help.
Nevadans should ask: Do we really want to follow California’s lead?
This article was written with the assistance of AI. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
