California Rideshare Accident Law Changes: How SB 371 and SB 623 Affect Uber & Lyft Injury Claims

What Actually Changed — and When

If you were hurt in an Uber or Lyft crash in Los Angeles, the rules governing your claim are not the rules that applied two years ago. Two bills are responsible, and they operate on very different timelines.

SB 371 (Chapter 314, Statutes of 2025) amended Section 5433 of the California Public Utilities Code — the statute setting minimum insurance for transportation network companies, or TNCs. It was chaptered October 3, 2025. Its most consequential change for injured passengers: a specific, and comparatively modest, uninsured and underinsured motorist limit written directly into the statute.

SB 623 (Chapter 17, Statutes of 2026) reached into the damages themselves. It added Civil Code § 3333.9, was chaptered June 25, 2026, and creates a hard ceiling on what a plaintiff can recover for past medical expenses billed by lien-based providers in rideshare auto cases — applying only to accidents on or after January 1, 2027.

SB 371: The Passenger UM/UIM Number Most Riders Have Never Seen

Ask most Angelenos what happens if they are hurt in an Uber and they will tell you there is "a million-dollar policy." That is partly right, and the part that is wrong is the part that matters most in a serious crash.

Under Public Utilities Code § 5433(b)(1), from the moment a participating driver accepts a ride request until the ride is complete, TNC insurance is primary and in the amount of $1,000,000. That has not changed. If your Lyft driver runs a red light on Wilshire, that $1 million liability policy is the one that responds.

But most Los Angeles rideshare passengers are not injured by their own driver. They are injured by the other car — the driver who blows a stop sign in Koreatown, the hit-and-run on the 110, the driver carrying bare-minimum limits. When the at-fault party is uninsured or underinsured, you are no longer in liability territory. You are in uninsured/underinsured motorist territory, and that is exactly where SB 371 drew a line.

Section 5433(b)(2) now requires a transportation network company to provide uninsured motorist and underinsured motorist coverage in the amount of $60,000 per person and $300,000 per incident, running from the moment a passenger enters the driver's vehicle until the passenger exits it. The statute adds two important features:

• That UM/UIM policy is primary over any other applicable uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage; and
• It is solely the obligation of the transportation network company — not the driver, and not the driver's personal carrier.

Those provisions are a mixed blessing. The good news is primacy: you do not fight about whose UM policy goes first, and the TNC cannot push the obligation down to a gig driver who carries nothing. The bad news is the number — $60,000 per person does not go far against a spinal fusion, a brain injury, or a Level I trauma center stay.

Do not forget your own UM/UIM policy

The TNC's UM/UIM coverage being "primary" does not mean it is the only coverage. If you carry your own underinsured motorist coverage, it can sit behind the TNC layer. Many injured passengers never think to open a claim on their own policy because they were not in their own car. That is a costly assumption, and one of the first things we check.

The Three Insurance Phases, Updated

California TNC insurance still turns on what the driver's app was doing at the moment of impact. Here is the current structure under § 5433:

Three protections in § 5433 are worth knowing because insurers rarely volunteer them. Subdivision (d): TNC coverage is not dependent on a personal auto policy first denying the claim. Subdivision (e): where a driver's TNC policy has lapsed, the company must cover from the first dollar. Subdivision (f): the statute does not cap a TNC's liability — nothing prevents an action for damages above the required amounts.

SB 623: A Hard Cap on Lien-Based Medical Bills

New Civil Code § 3333.9 applies to any civil case, claim, action, or arbitration against a network company, its subsidiary, or an app-based driver arising out of an automobile accident occurring on or after January 1, 2027, where the claimant obtained treatment from a lien-based provider.

In Los Angeles that describes an enormous share of rideshare claims. Many injured people here have no health insurance, or deductibles they cannot front, so they treat on a lien or letter of protection — the provider waits and gets paid out of the settlement. That model is now regulated.

The 70th percentile ceiling

Under § 3333.9(b)(1)(A), the maximum recovery for any medical expense rendered by a lien-based provider shall not exceed the 70th percentile of FAIR Health, Inc.'s billed charges — or a comparable commercially recognized billed-charges database — for the same or similar service in the applicable geographic area at the time it was rendered. A plaintiff also cannot recover more than the provider actually billed.

Several mechanics follow:

• Excess billing is void. Under (b)(1)(D), any amount billed above the cap is void and unenforceable, and no one may collect or seek reimbursement for it — protecting the client, not just the defendant.
• The jury never hears the number. Under (b)(2), no party may reference a billed charge or lien amount above the recoverable amount, or reference the statute itself to the trier of fact.
• Itemization is mandatory. Under (b)(5), damages are recoverable only if supported by itemized bills at the procedure-code level using CPT, HCPCS, or ICD coding. A challenging party must give written notice, and the provider has 30 days to cure.
• A narrow escape hatch exists. Under (b)(1)(C), a plaintiff may move pretrial for recovery above the cap on clear and convincing evidence supported by expert testimony that the service was exceptionally rare or highly specialized with no comparable provider. If denied, the opposing party recovers its fees for opposing it.

Subdivision (a)(5) confirms nothing in the section abrogates the collateral source rule, and (f)(2) excludes care furnished through health insurance, government health coverage, or the Hospital Lien Act. If you treat through your own health plan, Medi-Cal, Medicare, or workers' compensation, this cap is not aimed at you.

Lien Sales, Disclosure Duties, and New Attorney Conduct Rules

SB 623 also targets the market that grew up around medical liens — the buying, factoring, and financing of injury receivables.

Under subdivision (c)(1), where a lien or right to payment has been sold, assigned, financed, or factored, the maximum recoverable medical damages — and the maximum the plaintiff can be held liable for — cannot exceed the total consideration actually paid for that lien, and never exceeds the 70th percentile cap. If a funding company bought a $40,000 lien for $9,000, the exposure follows the $9,000.

Under (c)(2), those transfer agreements and the consideration paid — including contingent, deferred, or future payments — are discoverable and must be disclosed to the plaintiff, both attorneys, and any insurer within 30 days and, in all events, before settlement or distribution. An undisclosed lien sale may not be asserted against a defendant, insurer, settlement, or proceeds. Subdivision (c)(4) closes the workaround: any arrangement transferring the economic risk of noncollection is treated as an assignment regardless of what the paperwork calls it.

Subdivision (d) makes referral relationships discoverable and requires a provider, on request, to give a declaration under penalty of perjury stating whether the attorney referred the plaintiff and how many patients that firm referred in the preceding 24 months.

Subdivision (e) sets conduct rules with State Bar consequences. A contingency-fee plaintiff's attorney may not refer a client to a provider the attorney or an immediate family member owns; may not fee split or take kickbacks or referral compensation for lien-based treatment; and may not charge an added fee for reducing a medical lien, though a third party may be retained to negotiate reductions at cost with client consent. A provider may not agree in advance to reduce a lien.

What This Means on the Ground in Los Angeles

Los Angeles is among the most rideshare-saturated markets in the country. Between LAX pickups, the Hollywood and downtown nightlife corridors, and Dodger Stadium and Crypto.com Arena traffic, TNC miles driven in LA County are immense — and so is crash exposure on the 405, the 101, the 110, Sunset, Wilshire, and Figueroa. Three consequences follow:

1. Serious-injury passenger cases get harder to fund

When the at-fault driver is uninsured or underinsured — extremely common in LA County — the TNC layer available to a passenger is $60,000 per person. Cases that once resolved inside a rideshare UM policy now require stacking every source: your own UM/UIM, household resident-relative policies, third-party defendants, and direct claims against the TNC above required limits, which § 5433(f) expressly preserves.

2. Documentation discipline becomes a case-value issue

For post–January 1, 2027 crashes, unitemized or improperly coded bills are not recoverable at all until cured within the 30-day window. Choosing providers who bill cleanly at the procedure-code level is now part of protecting your recovery.

3. The lawyer you choose matters more, not less

Phase determination, UM/UIM layering, lien-transfer discovery, and the pretrial motion practice around the 70th percentile cap are all attorney-side problems — not things an injured person can navigate against a carrier's claims department. If you are also dealing with a fall at a rideshare pickup zone, our Los Angeles slip and fall guide covers premises claims, and our Los Angeles car accident page covers standard collision claims.

What to Do After a Rideshare Crash in Los Angeles

1. Get medical care the same day. Treatment gaps are the most effective argument an adjuster has against you, and they are nearly impossible to repair later.
2. Screenshot the trip in the app first. Driver name, vehicle, trip ID, route map, timestamps. This is your proof of which insurance phase applied — and the evidence most likely to disappear.
3. Report through the app and to law enforcement. An LAPD or CHP report creates an independent record. Get the report number at the scene.
4. Photograph everything and collect witness names and numbers before they leave.
5. Do not give a recorded statement to any carrier before speaking to a lawyer.
6. Notify your own carrier to preserve UM/UIM rights; many policies have short notice provisions.
7. Watch the deadlines. Most California injury claims must be filed within two years under CCP § 335.1. If a public entity is involved, a government claim is generally due within six months under Gov. Code § 911.2. Our statute of limitations guide explains the exceptions.

Frequently Asked Questions

Sources

• California SB 371, Chapter 314, Statutes of 2025 (amending Pub. Util. Code § 5433; chaptered October 3, 2025). Bill text.
• California SB 623, Chapter 17, Statutes of 2026 (adding Civ. Code § 3333.9; chaptered June 25, 2026). Bill text.
• Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1; Cal. Gov. Code § 911.2; Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3045.1–3045.6 (Hospital Lien Act).

Related Guides

This article is general legal information about California law as of September 10, 2026. It is not legal advice, and statutes and their interpretation change. Whether SB 371 or SB 623 applies to your situation depends on facts specific to your case. Consult a licensed California attorney about your own claim.