Assembly committee advances SB 371 to cut rideshare uninsured/underinsured limits to $100K/$300K

Senate Bill 371, authored by Sen. Bill Cabaldon, cleared the Assembly Insurance Committee on a party-line vote after hour‑long testimony and questions. The bill would lower the specific uninsured/underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage that currently applies to rideshare companies and require additional data and review of the coverage levels.

Cabaldon, the bill’s author, told the committee that the current UIM limits were set “when the sector was brand new” and said the measure "replaces them ... with limits of a $100,000 per person, $300,000 per passengers in the vehicle" while adding transparency and study requirements. He framed the change as an affordability measure intended to reduce the portion of fares paid for government‑mandated insurance.

Ramona Prieto, director of public policy for Uber, testified in support and described the insurance pass‑through to riders: "In Los Angeles County, up to 45% of every fare goes to government mandated insurance, around 33% for the state of California." Prieto and Nick Johnson, Lyft’s public policy director, said the bill would not touch companies’ $1,000,000 liability coverage for at‑fault drivers and would make the TNC UIM policy primary in some claim situations. They said their analyses show the current UIM regime raises costs for riders and drivers and that lower UIM limits would still leave California higher than most states. The companies cited a Berkeley Research Group (BRG) analysis they commissioned as supporting evidence.

Opponents, including Casey Johnson of the Consumer Attorneys of California and Sarah Flock of the California Federation of Labor, said the proposed reduction would sharply cut protections for injured riders and drivers. "This is a corporate windfall at the expense of real people," Casey Johnson said, arguing lower limits could leave people with substantial medical bills and unpaid losses; Flock noted drivers do not have workers’ compensation under Proposition 22 and said occupational accident coverage does not replace the protections of UIM.

Committee members pressed the author and company witnesses on how any savings would be passed to riders or drivers and on the underlying data. Cabaldon and the companies said the bill includes a study and look‑back provisions and pledged further work on transparency, and Lyft said its internal guarantees mean drivers would benefit if external fees fall. Several members voiced both support for affordability and concern about leaving injured people under‑protected.

The committee voted to "do pass as proposed to be amended in Communications and Conveyance Committee" and move the bill to the Appropriations Committee. The roll call recorded multiple aye votes and at least one member not voting as recorded in the committee roll call.

What the bill would change: SB 371 lowers the statutorily specified UIM limits that apply to TNCs and adds study/reporting and data provisions to review whether the new limits achieve intended affordability outcomes. It does not change the statutory $1,000,000 liability coverage for at‑fault TNC drivers. The bill also includes language making the TNC UIM policy primary in some circumstances, per amendments discussed in the hearing.

The committee discussion left several issues unresolved: how exactly savings would be shown to flow to riders and drivers; the market study data supporting the specific dollar limits; and claim‑handling interactions (setoffs) between at‑fault party payments and TNC UIM recoveries. The author and supporters pledged continued work on those points as the bill proceeds.

Votes at committee: motion carried; committee staff recorded the motion as "do pass as proposed to be amended in Communications and Conveyance Committee." The committee called the roll and recorded ayes sufficient to pass; Ortega was recorded as "not voting" during the roll call.

Why it matters: The bill targets an insurance requirement that stakeholders say materially affects fares and driver earnings; opponents say it risks leaving injured Californians with inadequate compensation. The committee action advances the bill while keeping negotiation points — data, access to UIM benefits, and guarantees on distribution of savings — open for later committees.

Sources: testimony and roll call recorded at the Assembly Insurance Committee hearing for SB 371 (Senator Cabaldon).