A crash involving an Uber or Lyft raises an insurance question that an ordinary car wreck does not: which policy covers the harm depends on what the rideshare driver was doing at the moment of the crash.
If you were in a crash involving a rideshare car, South Carolina law lets you recover from those at fault, as long as you were 50 percent or less at fault. However, the key to a full recovery is knowing which coverage applies.
The Arndt Law Firm represents people injured in rideshare crashes across Goose Creek and Berkeley County, whether passengers, other drivers, or pedestrians. If you wonder whether you are owed compensation, contact us.
Rideshare accidents follow the same fault principles as other car crashes, but they add a layer of complexity that ordinary crashes do not: a commercial transportation network company and its insurance stand behind the driver, and the coverage available depends on the driver's status at the time.
Companies like Uber and Lyft connect drivers and passengers through an app, and the drivers use their own personal vehicles, which sits awkwardly between personal and commercial insurance. This creates a situation where the same driver in the same car may be covered by very different insurance depending on what they were doing when a crash occurred.
A driver who was not using the app at all is in a different position than one who was waiting for a ride request, who is in turn different from one who was on the way to pick up a passenger or had a passenger in the car. South Carolina law, like that of other states, addresses these situations through a system of insurance phases tied to the driver's status.
Understanding this phase structure is central to a rideshare claim, because it determines which insurance applies and how much coverage is available. A victim, whether a passenger, another driver, or a pedestrian, needs to know which phase the rideshare driver was in to identify the coverage that responds to their claim.
The phase analysis is the defining feature of a rideshare case, and getting it right is essential to reaching the available coverage.
South Carolina regulates transportation network companies under Title 58 of the state code, which sets the insurance requirements that apply at each phase of a rideshare driver's activity. These phases determine which policy, the driver's personal insurance or the company's coverage, applies to a crash, and the differences are substantial.
When the app is off and the driver is using the car for personal purposes, only the driver's personal auto insurance applies, just as for any other driver.
Once the driver turns on the app and is available to accept rides but has not yet accepted one, a primary level of coverage from the rideshare company applies, providing limited liability coverage that is higher than the state minimum but below the full commercial level. Here, coverage is most limited, and disputes about which policy responds are most common.
The coverage increases substantially once a driver accepts a ride. From the moment the driver accepts a ride request and is on the way to pick up the passenger, and continuing while the passenger is in the vehicle, the rideshare company's full commercial coverage applies, providing one million dollars in liability coverage.
This means a passenger injured during a trip, or another person injured in a crash caused by a driver who was carrying or en route to a passenger, generally has access to substantial coverage.
The gap between the phases can be very significant, since a driver waiting for a request carries only the primary coverage while the same driver, moments later, having accepted a request, falls under the full one million dollar policy. Determining which phase applied at the moment of the crash is therefore the threshold question in a rideshare case.
The reason these phases exist is that rideshare driving does not fit neatly into either the personal or the commercial insurance model.
A personal auto policy generally excludes coverage when the vehicle is being used commercially, which a rideshare driver carrying a paying passenger is doing, while a fully commercial policy would be impractical to maintain at all times for a driver who uses the same car for personal errands.
The phase system bridges this gap by matching the level of coverage to the nature of the activity at each moment: personal coverage when the car is used personally, a primary level when the driver is available but not yet engaged, and full commercial coverage when the driver is actually working a ride.
For a crash victim, the practical consequence is that the same crash can carry very different coverage depending on a status that may have changed only seconds before the collision, which is why pinning down the phase precisely is so central to the claim.
Does my own insurance cover me if the other driver was at fault?
It can. If the at-fault driver carried only South Carolina's minimum coverage or none at all, your own uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage may apply. By having a rideshare accident lawyer in Goose Creek review your policy, you can find an additional source of recovery.
A rideshare crash can injure several categories of people, and each has a path to recovery, though the available coverage depends on the circumstances.
Passengers in the rideshare vehicle are often the most straightforward, because a passenger is rarely at fault for a crash, and when the driver was carrying them, the company's full commercial coverage generally applies.
A passenger injured in a rideshare crash can typically pursue a claim against whichever driver was at fault, with the substantial coverage that the passenger-carrying phase provides.
The passenger's position deserves emphasis because it is often the strongest. A person who hires a rideshare and is injured during the trip did nothing to cause the crash; they were simply a passenger, with no control over how the vehicle was driven.
This means the passenger's claim rarely involves a serious dispute about their own fault, and because the driver was carrying a passenger, the full commercial coverage is generally in play.
The passenger's claim may lie against the rideshare driver, against another driver who caused the crash, or against both, and a passenger injured by a third driver who carried too little insurance may also reach the rideshare company's uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage.
Sorting out which of these applies is the main work of a rideshare passenger's claim, and the substantial coverage available at the passenger-carrying phase is what makes a full recovery possible for a serious injury.
People in other vehicles struck by a rideshare driver form a second group. If the rideshare driver was at fault, the available coverage depends on the phase the driver was in, ranging from personal insurance when the app was off to full commercial coverage when carrying or en route to a passenger.
If another driver was at fault, that driver's insurance and the victim's own coverage come into play, much as in any car accident. A rideshare passenger injured by a third driver's negligence may also have access to the rideshare company's uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage in appropriate circumstances.
State law requires uninsured motorist coverage on the rideshare policy at every phase, under South Carolina sections 58-23-1630 and 38-77-150. Underinsured motorist coverage is optional in South Carolina under section 38-77-160, so whether it is available depends on the policy actually written, which is one reason the policy itself must be obtained and read.
Pedestrians and cyclists struck by a rideshare driver form a third group, and their recovery similarly depends on the driver's phase and fault. In each case, the analysis combines the ordinary questions of fault with the rideshare-specific question of which coverage applies.
Identifying every responsible party and every applicable policy, including the rideshare company's coverage at the relevant phase, is what allows a victim to reach the resources available, and it is a central task in any rideshare case.
South Carolina's modified comparative negligence rule governs rideshare crashes, allowing a victim to recover as long as they were 50 percent or less at fault, reducing the recovery by their percentage, and barring it at 51 percent or more, under Nelson v. Concrete Supply Company (1991). Fault in a rideshare crash is determined the same way as in any other crash, by examining how the collision happened and who was responsible.
For a rideshare passenger, fault is usually not at issue, since a passenger rarely contributes to a crash, which makes the passenger's claim primarily a question of which driver was responsible and which coverage applies.
For other drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists involved in a rideshare crash, the fault analysis can be more contested, with the responsible party's insurer arguing that the victim shared fault, as in any car accident.
The added complexity in a rideshare case is that the fault analysis intersects with the phase analysis. Establishing that the rideshare driver was at fault is necessary to reach the rideshare company's coverage, and establishing which phase the driver was in determines how much of that coverage is available.
The two analyses work together, and building the evidence that establishes both the rideshare driver's responsibility and their status at the time of the crash is central to the claim.
Yes, as long as you were 50 percent or less at fault. South Carolina law, under Nelson v. Concrete Supply Company (1991), establishes a comparative negligence rule. Your recovery is reduced by your percentage of fault, and it is barred completely at 51 percent. A key part of building a strong claim is keeping your share of fault low.
Because the available coverage turns on the driver's phase at the moment of the crash, establishing that status is one of the most important tasks in a rideshare case.
The rideshare company holds the records that show whether the driver was logged into the app, whether they had accepted a ride, and whether a passenger was in the vehicle, and these records are essential to determining which coverage applies. Obtaining them is a key step in the investigation.
This information is largely controlled by the rideshare company, which has an interest in the phase determination because it affects which coverage, and how much, applies. A driver who was between rides may be characterized in a way that minimizes the company's exposure, and the line between phases can be disputed, such as exactly when a driver had accepted a ride.
The company's app data, including timestamps and trip records, provides the objective evidence of the driver's status, and securing it is important to establishing the correct phase.
Obtaining this data often requires a formal request, because the rideshare company does not volunteer records that may establish its coverage obligation, and the data is not something the victim can access on their own.
A passenger may have some trip information in their own app, which is valuable, but the complete record of the driver's status, including the precise moment a ride was accepted and the driver's logged activity around the crash, sits in the company's systems.
Acting promptly to request and preserve this evidence is important both because it is the objective proof of the phase and because, like other electronic records, it may be subject to retention limits. The sooner the request is made, the more reliably the company's own data can be used to establish the phase that determines the coverage.
Because this evidence is held by the company and the phase determination affects the coverage, acting to obtain the relevant records early is part of building a rideshare claim.
The precise timestamps in the company's records are often what resolve a contested phase question, because a crash that occurs seconds before or after a driver accepts a ride can fall under very different coverage, and the company's data carries that information with a precision that memory cannot match.
A victim who secures this evidence early is in a far stronger position to establish that the more substantial commercial coverage applied, rather than accepting the company's characterization of the driver as having been in a lower-coverage phase.
The phase question is not a technicality but frequently the single factor that determines how much coverage is available to address a serious injury.
Rideshare use is common in the Goose Creek area, shaped by the area's place in the Charleston metro and its proximity to the airport and to a large population that includes military personnel and families.
Charleston International Airport in North Charleston is a frequent rideshare destination, reached from Goose Creek by way of Interstate 26 in a short drive, and travelers heading to or from the airport by rideshare face the same phase and coverage questions as any other rideshare passenger. A traveler injured in a rideshare on that route has the full rideshare analysis to navigate.
Within the area, rideshare serves the community and the restaurants, breweries, and venues along the commercial corridors, with people using it to avoid driving after an evening out or simply for convenience as the area grows. The pickups and drop-offs occur throughout the area, on US-52 and the other corridors, near Interstate 26, and on the streets of the residential communities.
The mix of heavy traffic, including the commercial-truck volume on US-52 and the peaks around the Naval Weapons Station shift changes, creates conditions where rideshare crashes occur, and the resulting claims turn on the same analysis of fault and phase that governs rideshare cases everywhere.
The airport connection is a particularly common context for rideshare use in the area, given Goose Creek's short drive to Charleston International by way of Interstate 26.
Travelers arriving or departing, including the many associated with the area's military community, frequently use rideshare for the airport trip rather than parking or arranging other transportation, which puts a steady stream of rideshare vehicles on the I-26 corridor between Goose Creek and North Charleston.
A crash on that route, whether involving the rideshare vehicle alone or other traffic on the busy interstate, raises the same phase and coverage questions as any rideshare crash, and the traveler injured far from home has the added concern of pursuing a claim in the area where the crash occurred. Understanding the local routes and the rideshare patterns they carry is part of handling these claims in the Goose Creek area.
Rideshare crashes cause the same range of injuries as other car accidents, from soft-tissue injuries and fractures to traumatic brain injuries, spinal cord injuries, and other catastrophic harm, depending on the severity of the collision.
A passenger in a rideshare vehicle, often seated in the back and perhaps not anticipating a crash, can be seriously injured, and the critically injured in the Goose Creek area are taken to Trident Medical Center in nearby North Charleston, the region's Level II trauma center, with the most catastrophic cases going to MUSC's Level I center in downtown Charleston.
South Carolina law allows recovery for the full range of harm a rideshare crash causes. Economic damages cover medical expenses from emergency care through future treatment, lost wages, and reduced earning capacity, and non-economic damages compensate for pain and suffering, emotional distress, and the loss of enjoyment of life.
For a serious injury, the future medical and lost-earning components are often substantial, and capturing them fully requires looking beyond the bills already received.
The advantage in many rideshare cases is that the company's commercial coverage, when it applies, provides substantial limits that can address a serious injury more fully than the minimum coverage many individual drivers carry.
This makes the phase determination especially consequential, since access to the commercial coverage can mean the difference between a recovery that addresses the full harm and one constrained by inadequate limits. Where a crash is fatal, South Carolina's wrongful death and survival statutes allow the family and estate to recover.
This coverage advantage is worth understanding because it can change the outcome of an otherwise difficult claim.
In an ordinary crash, a victim whose damages exceed the at-fault driver's minimum policy may face a shortfall that their own coverage cannot fully bridge, but in a rideshare crash where the commercial coverage applies, the available limit is far higher, and a serious injury that would overwhelm a minimum policy can be addressed within the rideshare company's coverage.
This is precisely why the rideshare company and its insurer have an incentive to characterize the driver as having been in a lower-coverage phase, and why establishing the correct phase, with the higher coverage it brings, is so often the key to a full recovery.
The victim who can show that the driver had accepted a ride or was carrying a passenger reaches a level of coverage that makes a meaningful difference to what a serious injury can recover.
In a fatal crash, a wrongful death action must be brought within three years of the date of death, not the date of the crash, under South Carolina Code sections 15-51-10 and 15-3-530(6). A separate survival action for the harm the person suffered before death runs from the date of injury, so the two deadlines can differ.
The steps taken after a rideshare crash protect both health and the claim, and some are specific to the rideshare context.
The priority is medical care, and accepting evaluation matters even when injuries seem minor, both for health and to create the record that connects the injury to the crash. A rideshare passenger should seek treatment just as the occupant of any vehicle would.
Documenting the rideshare details is especially important because of the phase and coverage questions. If you are able, save the trip information in the app, including the driver's identity and the trip record, which establishes that a trip was underway and helps fix the driver's phase.
Screenshots of the trip, the receipt, and the driver's information preserve this evidence. Photographs of the vehicles and the scene, and the names of witnesses, document the crash as in any collision, and ensuring law enforcement responds creates an official record.
In the days that follow, preserving evidence and being cautious with insurers protects the claim. The app data that fixes the driver's phase is held by the company, so acting to obtain it is important, and keeping all medical records and documentation builds the damages case.
Because more than one insurer may be involved, including the rideshare company's, being careful about giving recorded statements before understanding the claim is wise. Seeking advice early helps secure the phase evidence that determines coverage.
A rideshare crash frequently involves more than one insurance company, and the way those insurers interact can complicate a claim in ways an ordinary crash does not.
The rideshare driver's personal insurer, the rideshare company's commercial insurer, the victim's own insurer, and any other driver's insurer may all have a potential role, and each has an interest in minimizing its own exposure. The result can be a situation where insurers point at one another, each arguing that another policy should respond, in a way that stalls the claim.
The phase determination sits at the center of this, because it often decides which insurer is primarily responsible. The rideshare driver's personal insurer may deny coverage on the ground that the driver was working at the time, while the rideshare company's insurer may argue that the driver was in a lower-coverage phase or was not at fault.
A victim caught between these positions, without the app data and the evidence that establishes the driver's status, can find the claim delayed and the available coverage disputed.
Cutting through this requires establishing the facts clearly: who was at fault, what phase the rideshare driver was in, and which policies therefore apply. The app data, the police report, witness accounts, and the physical evidence of the crash together fix these facts, and with them established, the responsible insurer can be held to its obligation.
This is why the early investigation and the prompt securing of the company's records matter so much in a rideshare case, because they are what prevent the victim from being caught indefinitely between insurers each pointing at the other.
If an insurer suggests your recovery should be reduced because you were not wearing a seat belt, state law forecloses that argument: under South Carolina Code section 56-5-6540(C), a seat belt violation is not negligence per se or contributory negligence and is not admissible in a civil action.
A Goose Creek rideshare case is filed in the Court of Common Pleas for Berkeley County, part of South Carolina's Ninth Judicial Circuit, at the Berkeley County Courthouse, 300-B California Avenue, Moncks Corner.
| Rideshare phase | Coverage that applies |
| App off (personal use) | Driver's personal auto insurance only |
| App on, awaiting a request | Primary coverage above state minimum |
| Ride accepted or passenger aboard | Company's full commercial coverage (at least $1M) |
It depends on who was at fault and, for the rideshare driver, what phase they were in. When a driver was carrying or en route to a passenger, the company's full commercial coverage generally applies.
Usually yes. A passenger is rarely at fault, and when the rideshare driver was carrying you, substantial commercial coverage generally applies. You can pursue a claim against whichever driver was responsible.
If the driver had the app on but had not accepted a ride, a primary level of company coverage applies, above the state minimum but below the full commercial level. The exact phase matters to the coverage.
Three years from the date of the crash under South Carolina Code section 15-3-530(5). A shorter deadline applies if a government entity is responsible.
Yes, as long as you were 50 percent or less at fault. Your recovery is reduced by your percentage of fault, and barred entirely at 51 percent or more.
The Arndt Law Firm handles these cases on a contingency basis, meaning no fee unless there is a recovery. A free consultation is the usual way to discuss whether you have a claim.
Goose Creek is entirely within Berkeley County, so a significant rideshare accident suit is heard in the Court of Common Pleas for the Ninth Judicial Circuit in Moncks Corner.
The Arndt Law Firm approaches every Goose Creek rideshare case by establishing the driver's phase at the moment of the crash, obtaining the company's app data that determines which coverage applies, proving fault, and identifying every responsible party and policy to reach the available coverage.
Since attorney Arndt previously defended insurers, we understand how these claims are evaluated and how the phase determination affects coverage, and we build each case to reach the full recovery a serious injury requires.
If you were injured in a rideshare crash in Goose Creek or anywhere in Berkeley County, whether as a passenger, another driver, or a pedestrian, time is of the essence. Contact us or call (843) 310-4645 for a free consultation; we handle these cases on a contingency basis, so there is no fee unless there is a recovery.
Last reviewed: June 2026
This page was reviewed by Jonathan S. Arndt, licensed in South Carolina since 2018.
