Crashes involving Uber or Lyft in Charleston are more complex than standard collisions because the applicable insurance depends on the rideshare driver's status in the app at the time of the accident. Under South Carolina law, you have three years to file a claim and may recover damages if you are 50 percent or less at fault. Available coverage can range from a personal policy to a one-million-dollar commercial policy, based on the driver's status.
The Arndt Law Firm assists passengers, drivers, and pedestrians injured in rideshare accidents throughout Charleston County. In the lines below, you will learn how coverage works and how to protect your claim after a rideshare crash in the area.
South Carolina regulates rideshare companies as transportation network companies, or TNCs, under S.C. Code §§ 58-23-1610 through 58-23-1630, and the law divides coverage into phases based on the driver's status in the app. In the first phase, when the app is off and the driver is using the car personally, only the driver's personal auto insurance applies, exactly as in any ordinary crash. The rideshare company has no involvement at this stage.
When a rideshare driver is logged into the company’s network and available to receive requests but has not accepted a ride, South Carolina law requires primary automobile liability coverage of at least $50,000 for bodily injury or death to one person, $100,000 for bodily injury or death per incident, and $50,000 for property damage. The driver may maintain the coverage, the transportation network company, or both.
This is commonly described as 50/100/50 coverage. The driver’s personal policy may exclude or limit coverage while the vehicle is being used for rideshare activity, which makes confirming the app status and all applicable policies important.
S.C. Code § 58-23-1630(B) expressly requires 50/100/50 coverage during the logged-in, waiting-for-a-request period. During an accepted or active ride, subsection (C) requires at least $1 million in primary liability coverage.
The third phase begins when the driver accepts a ride and continues until the passenger is dropped off. During this time, the rideshare company must provide at least one million dollars in primary liability coverage. The difference between phases can mean the difference between minimum limits and a million-dollar policy. Hence, determining the driver's exact app status at the time of the crash is a critical first step in any rideshare case.
Rideshare crashes can injure various parties, and the recovery process differs for each.
Passengers often have a favorable standing in these situations, as they are typically covered by the rideshare company's one-million-dollar policy during an active trip, as long as the rideshare driver caused the crash. If another motorist caused the crash, the passenger’s claim runs against that motorist’s liability insurer.
Occupants of other vehicles and pedestrians face a more complex situation, as their recovery depends on the rideshare driver's app status. If a driver with a passenger causes a crash, the one-million-dollar policy applies. If the driver was only waiting for a request, lower primary limits apply.
Pedestrians may need to seek coverage from multiple sources depending on the phase, and a Charleston pedestrian accident lawyer can provide clear and straightforward guidance on this matter.
The rideshare driver may also be a victim, especially if another motorist caused the crash. A driver injured by a third party may have a claim against that driver and, depending on the phase, may access the rideshare company's uninsured or underinsured coverage.
The driver's personal policy may exclude coverage while the app is on, creating the same gap seen with other victims. Identifying who was injured and their role is essential for determining which coverage applies.
Rideshare pickups and drop-offs create different risks across the Charleston area. On the peninsula, vehicles frequently stop around Upper King, Cannonborough-Elliotborough, Market Street, and the historic district, where passengers may enter or exit beside pedestrians, cyclists, delivery vehicles, and limited curb space.
Other claims arise during trips through West Ashley, James Island, Mount Pleasant, and North Charleston, particularly where local traffic enters major corridors such as I-26, U.S. 17, or the approaches to Charleston International Airport at 5500 International Blvd, North Charleston, SC 29418. Airport trips may also involve designated TNC pickup, drop-off, or staging procedures that help establish where the driver was supposed to be and whether the ride had officially begun.
Late-night pickups require particular attention to the precise pickup point, passenger location, lighting, traffic-control restrictions, and whether the passenger has to step into a travel lane. South Carolina Fault Rules
South Carolina follows the modified comparative negligence rule adopted by the South Carolina Supreme Court in Nelson v. Concrete Supply Co., 303 S.C. 243, 399 S.E.2d 783 (1991). An injured person may generally recover when their fault does not exceed the defendant’s combined fault. The award is reduced by the injured person’s percentage of responsibility, and recovery is barred when that person is 51 percent or more at fault.
S.C. Code § 15-38-15 separately governs the apportionment of fault and damages among defendants and other tortfeasors. It may be relevant when several drivers or entities contributed to the collision, but it should not be presented as the source of South Carolina’s modified comparative negligence rule.
For other victims, fault is determined as it would be in any crash, by examining what each driver did. When a rideshare driver and another motorist share responsibility, South Carolina apportions fault between them, and each is accountable for their share. The presence of the rideshare company's insurance does not change the fault analysis; it changes which policy pays once fault is established.
Because the available coverage can be substantial when the right phase applies, the fault question and the phase question often work together. Establishing both that another party was at fault and that the rideshare trip was active can open the one-million-dollar policy to an injured passenger or third party. Documenting the facts that establish fault and the driver's app status is therefore central to maximizing what a rideshare claim can recover.
In South Carolina, rideshare companies like Uber and Lyft are generally not directly liable for a driver’s negligence under respondeat superior, because drivers are classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Instead, the law requires TNCs to provide specific insurance coverage for their drivers during active rideshare periods.
As a result, legal claims for injuries are typically brought against the at-fault driver and the applicable insurance policy, rather than the company itself. The rideshare company’s primary role is as the provider of statutorily mandated insurance during covered trips, not as a direct liability target.
The rideshare company's insurance is often the most significant source of recovery, even though the companies treat their drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. The law requires the company's policy to respond during the active phases of a trip, which is what gives an injured passenger or third party access to the one-million-dollar policy when the trip is underway. The challenge is rarely whether the coverage exists; it is establishing that the phase triggering it applied at the moment of the crash.
A governmental entity may be involved when a dangerous roadway condition, defective traffic signal, negligent road maintenance, or another act by a public employee contributed to the crash. These claims may be governed by the South Carolina Tort Claims Act rather than the ordinary personal-injury deadline.
An action under the Act generally must be commenced within two years after the loss was or should have been discovered. If the claimant first files a properly verified claim under the Act, the deadline for commencing the lawsuit may be extended to three years. A verified claim, when used, must be received by the appropriate governmental office within one year after the loss was or should have been discovered. The Act also imposes statutory damages limits and prohibits punitive damages against governmental entities.
S.C. Code § 15-78-80(d) contains the one-year verified-claim requirement, while § 15-78-110 provides the two-year deadline and the potential three-year period following a filed claim.
In The Palmetto State, rideshare companies like Uber and Lyft are not typically direct liability targets when a driver causes a crash. Because drivers are classified as independent contractors, not employees, vicarious liability under respondeat superior generally does not apply. Instead, the law requires rideshare companies to provide specific insurance coverage during active rideshare periods. As a result, recovery for injuries is pursued through the required insurance, not by holding the company itself directly liable. The practical consequence is that the central issue in a rideshare case is usually about insurance coverage and the phase of the ride, rather than whether the company itself can be sued.
Rideshare crashes produce the same range of injuries as any motor vehicle collision, from soft-tissue injuries and whiplash to fractures, spinal injuries, and traumatic brain injuries in the most serious crashes. A passenger in the back seat without a clear view of the road may be caught entirely off guard by a collision, and the forces of a highway crash on I-26 can cause severe harm regardless of where a person was seated.
When a serious rideshare crash occurs near the peninsula, the injured are routed to MUSC Health University Medical Center on Ashley Avenue, the Lowcountry's only Level I trauma center, where trauma teams manage the most severe injuries. The records generated there become central evidence of the injury's severity and support the damages claim, regardless of which policy ultimately pays. Treatment often continues through surgery, rehabilitation, and long-term follow-up.
The severity of the injury, more than any other factor, drives the value of a claim, which is why thorough documentation matters as much in a rideshare case as in any other. The added complexity of the insurance phases does not change the underlying need to establish the full scope of the harm, from the emergency care through the future costs the injury will demand.
South Carolina law allows recovery across the familiar categories in a rideshare case. Economic damages cover emergency and ongoing medical care, future treatment, lost wages, and reduced earning capacity, and these measurable losses form the core of most claims. Non-economic damages address pain, suffering, disfigurement, and the loss of activities that a serious injury takes away.
The practical question in a rideshare case is often not what categories of damages exist but which policy will pay them, and how much coverage is available. When the one-million-dollar active-trip policy applies, there is substantial coverage to address a serious injury, while a crash during the waiting phase may be limited to far lower limits. Establishing the phase is therefore directly tied to the recovery available.
Future costs deserve the same attention here as in any serious injury case. A catastrophic injury continues to generate expense long after the initial hospital stay, and an early offer built only on the bills already incurred falls short of that reality. Proving the full forward-looking cost, through treating physicians and economic analysis, is what aligns the recovery with the actual consequences of the injury, within whatever coverage the applicable phase provides.
The defining battle in many rideshare cases is the dispute over which phase applied, because the difference can be enormous. An insurer has every incentive to argue that a lower-coverage phase was in effect, contending that the app was not on, that a ride had not yet been accepted, or that the passenger was not yet in the vehicle. Because the coverage can swing from lower limits to a one-million-dollar policy depending on that determination, the phase dispute is frequently where the real money in a case is decided.
The evidence that resolves these disputes is electronic and time-sensitive. The rideshare company's own records show precisely when the driver logged on, when a ride was accepted, and when a passenger was picked up and dropped off. South Carolina law requires TNCs and insurers to exchange these log-on and log-off times in a coverage investigation. Preserving and obtaining that trip data is central to establishing the phase, and it is far easier to secure with a prompt demand than after the fact.
The rideshare companies maintain legal teams whose function is to limit what the companies pay, and they scrutinize every detail to support a lower-coverage position. Meeting that effort requires the trip data, the driver's account, and any corroborating evidence, such as the passenger's own app record. Establishing the correct phase with this evidence is what unlocks the coverage the law actually requires, rather than the lower figure the insurer would prefer to apply.
A rideshare claim may involve the TNC insurer, the driver’s personal carrier, another motorist’s insurer, and potentially the injured person’s UM or UIM carrier. Each insurer may attempt to shift responsibility to another policy. The personal carrier may invoke a commercial-use exclusion, while the TNC carrier may dispute whether the driver was logged in or had accepted the ride.
Insurers may also dispute the passenger’s pickup status, the exact moment the trip ended, whether the booking was direct or off-platform, and whether an allegedly underinsured driver’s liability limits were actually exhausted. A recorded statement given before the trip records and policy documents are obtained can create avoidable disputes.
The investigation should secure the driver’s login history, ride-acceptance timestamp, pickup and drop-off records, passenger app screenshots, electronic communications, crash report, available dashcam footage, and every potentially applicable insurance policy. Those records determine both liability and which layer of coverage may respond.
Rideshare cases turn on a combination of ordinary crash evidence and the distinctive trip data that establishes the phase. The crash evidence is familiar: the scene, the vehicle damage, the resting positions, the police report, and witness accounts, all of which establish how the collision occurred and who was at fault. This evidence degrades quickly and should be documented early.
The trip data is what sets rideshare cases apart. The rideshare company's app records and the passenger's app history establish the driver's status at the moment of the crash and, therefore, the phase of coverage. Dashcam footage, increasingly common in rideshare vehicles, can capture both the crash and the trip status directly. Because this electronic evidence can be lost and the company controls much of it, a prompt preservation demand is essential.
Human and medical evidence completes the picture. Witnesses to the crash, the passenger's own account, and the treating physicians who connect the injuries to the collision all carry weight. The deadline to file is generally three years under S.C. Code § 15-3-530(5), but the trip data and crash evidence are time-sensitive; acting early is often decisive in establishing both fault and the coverage that applies.
| Driver's app status | Coverage that applies | Typical limits |
| App off (personal use) | Driver's personal auto policy | Personal policy limits |
| Logged in and waiting for a request | TNC and/or driver’s qualifying coverage | $50,000 per person / $100,000 per incident / $50,000 property damage |
| Ride accepted, en route to pickup, or passenger aboard | TNC and/or driver’s qualifying primary coverage | At least $1 million |
| Uninsured/underinsured at-fault driver | TNC and/or your own UM/UIM | Varies by phase and policy |
Uninsured motorist coverage may apply when the responsible driver has no applicable liability insurance. Underinsured motorist coverage may apply when the responsible driver’s liability limits are lower than the injured person’s legally recoverable damages. Still, it does not automatically supplement every rideshare claim or guarantee recovery beyond the TNC policy.
Which UM or UIM coverage may respond depends on who caused the crash, the rideshare driver’s app status, the policies covering the vehicle, the injured person’s own policy, applicable exclusions, policy limits, and South Carolina’s rules governing offsets and stacking. A passenger should therefore have every potentially applicable policy reviewed before relying on personal UM or UIM coverage as an additional source of compensation.
South Carolina’s TNC statute requires uninsured motorist coverage during both the logged-in waiting period and a prearranged ride. Still, it does not state that every passenger may freely stack personal UIM benefits on top of the TNC’s liability limit.
| Coverage issue | When it may apply | Important limitation |
| UM or UIM coverage | When an at-fault driver is uninsured or has insufficient liability limits | Availability depends on app status, policy language, offsets, limits, and stacking rules |
An injured passenger may have a claim against the rideshare driver, another negligent motorist, or both. If the driver had accepted the ride, the TNC’s required $1 million primary liability coverage may apply. Payment is not automatic; fault, damages, app status, policy terms, and available UM or UIM coverage must still be established.
The rideshare driver’s app status matters because the amount of available insurance changes. If there is a passenger in the car, the $1 million policy applies. If the driver is only waiting for a ride request, lower coverage limits apply.
Your car insurance, specifically uninsured (UM) or underinsured (UIM) coverage, may apply if the at-fault driver’s insurance is insufficient. South Carolina law limits UIM use: it only applies if damages exceed coverage, with payments credited against your UIM limits. Stacking policies are restricted, so it won’t simply top up a $1 million rideshare policy.
Most South Carolina rideshare accident claims have a three-year filing period. A claim governed by the South Carolina Tort Claims Act generally has a two-year deadline, potentially extended to three years if a proper verified claim is filed. That verified claim must be received within one year after discovery of the loss.
No, you usually do not have to sue Uber or Lyft directly. Their commercial insurance company typically handles injury claims from active trips, so most cases are settled without a direct lawsuit against the rideshare company.
The strongest evidence usually includes the driver’s login history, ride-acceptance timestamp, passenger pickup and drop-off records, app screenshots, electronic receipts, and communications with the driver. Because the TNC controls much of this information, a prompt preservation request may be necessary before records become difficult to obtain.
The Arndt Law Firm builds every Charleston rideshare case by first establishing the driver's app status and the phase of coverage, then moving quickly to preserve the trip data that proves it, identifying every responsible party and applicable policy, and documenting the full scope of the injury.
Since attorney Arndt previously defended insurers, the firm understands how rideshare insurers dispute the phase to limit coverage and works to establish the correct one with the evidence the case requires.
If you were hurt in an Uber or Lyft crash in Charleston County, acting early protects the trip data and crash evidence that determine both fault and coverage, much of which the rideshare company controls and can be hard to obtain later.
The consultation is free, rideshare cases are handled on a contingency basis with no fee unless there is a recovery.
The phase evidence that can mean the difference between minimum limits and a one-million-dollar policy is most secure right after the crash, so you can reach out through our contact page or call (843) 273-8149 today to have our team review your case right away.
Last reviewed: June 2026
Jonathan S. Arndt is the founder of The Arndt Law Firm and represents people injured in motor-vehicle and rideshare collisions in South Carolina. Before representing injured claimants, he defended insurers and institutional clients, experience that informs the firm’s approach to liability disputes, insurance-policy interpretation, recorded statements, and claims involving multiple carriers.
