A major insurer has accused the taxi industry of a “campaign of self-interest” after it became the target of a complaint to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission over its coverage of UberX drivers.
NRMA, one of the few companies that has publicly stated its willingness to insure UberX drivers, also criticised the taxi industry for ignoring its customers and warned “the sharing economy is here to stay”.
The insurer rejected the taxi lobby’s claim that the popular ride-sharing service is illegal, which was the basis of a complaint to the ACCC on Monday.
The Australian Taxi Industry Association (ATIA) alleged that NRMA was “misleading” its customers by offering coverage that was excluded by its own contract fine print, which prohibited the use of a car “for illegal purposes”.
However, a spokeswoman for NRMA, which insures private vehicles used “occasionally” for UberX in NSW, Queensland and the ACT, said the insurer did not consider the commercial ride-sharing service illegal.
“Ram raiding an ATM, yes – Uber, no,” she said.
The taxi lobby is fighting a vigorous rearguard action as UberX continues to attract customers and drivers across the country, offering more competitive rates with its lower cost model and a service that avoids the traditional, expensive taxi-licensing regimes.
It also comes as UberX was set to appear before the federal Senate inquiry into corporate tax avoidance, according to an Australian Financial Review report.
Labor senator Sam Dastyari said the multinational’s company records suggested it did not pay income tax in Australia, which raised the need for new treatment of sharing economy businesses to stop Australian taxpayers potentially losing out on “tens of millions of dollars in the future”.
ATIA chief executive Blair Davies said NRMA’s position on UberX “appears completely conflicted” in light of its product disclosure statement.
“On the one hand, NRMA Insurance is saying to consumers that ‘she’ll be right mate, we’ve got you covered for UberX services’, but then in the actual insurance contract they supply them with, they have a clause that in effect says cover is excluded, ‘you’re on your own buddy’,” Davies said.
“If [drivers] are lucky enough to find an insurer that is prepared to insure UberX services while they remain illegal, our tip would be to make sure they get it in writing. If they have to put in a claim, they may need it.”
The NRMA spokeswoman said this was “patently untrue”.
“Our first priority is to protect our customers when they need us, so we have made the decision to cover them if they choose to use their car this way,” she said.
“We have robust processes and we will keep paying claims, as we do today.”
The NRMA spokeswoman went further on the counterattack with the taxi lobby, saying: “What’s missing from the taxi industry’s argument is the customer.”
“This is a campaign of self-interest by a taxi industry that has not stayed abreast of changing customer preferences and the adoption of sharing economy services like Uber. The sharing economy is here to stay. We believe as an insurer that we should protect our customers as these changes occur.”
The spokeswoman said the taxi industry was “angry at us because we’re covering something they don’t like”.
“I empathise with them but their beef is with the regulator, not us,” she said.
NRMA would not cover cars used exclusively for UberX, the spokeswoman said.
“This is mum and dad who have their own car and sometimes want to use it to pick up people on Uber.”
Such drivers were also covered under compulsory third-party insurance if they were involved in an accident that resulted in a multimillion-dollar payout award for a catastrophic injury, she said.
