Can Uber Decline Uninsured Motorist Coverage in Louisiana?
Santo Guerrera says a hit-and-run driver rear-ended the Uber he was riding in during Mardi Gras season in Louisiana. He sought uninsured-motorist benefits from Uber, its subsidiary Rasier, and their insurer.
On December 15, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a judgment for the companies. The court held that Louisiana law lets a transportation network company reject uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage when the rejection follows La. R.S. 22:1295. Guerrera did not dispute that Uber and Rasier had purported to reject the coverage. The district court had held that they did so properly, and it dismissed his claims against them with prejudice.
That is a federal appeals decision in this lawsuit. It is not a decision of the Louisiana Supreme Court. The Fifth Circuit refused to send the question there. It is also not a finding that every Uber or Lyft policy in Louisiana drops the coverage. Another policy still has to be read on its own terms, including whether the named insured rejected the coverage on the statutory form.
A hit-and-run during a ride
Guerrera says the other driver left without being identified and that the accident injured him. His claim was for uninsured motorist benefits. The opinion uses “UM” to refer to both uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage.
The lawsuit
Guerrera sued United Financial Casualty Company (UFCC) in Louisiana state court and later added Uber and Rasier. He argued that Louisiana required rideshare companies to provide UM coverage, so the companies couldn’t decline it. UFCC moved the case to federal court with Uber and Rasier’s consent.
The federal trial court dismissed the claims against Uber and Rasier, granted judgment to UFCC, and denied Guerrera’s competing request for judgment. It also denied as moot his request to send the legal question to the Louisiana Supreme Court. Guerrera appealed. The dispute was over whether the companies could legally opt out, since Guerrera accepted that they had tried to do so.
How Louisiana’s two insurance laws fit together
Louisiana’s rideshare insurance statute, La. R.S. 45:201.6, calls for uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage during a prearranged ride to the extent required by La. R.S. 22:1295. That second statute sets the general rules for UM coverage. It lets a named insured decline coverage, select lower limits, or choose economic-only coverage.
Guerrera read the cross-reference as adopting only the minimum coverage amounts from the general statute. Uber, Rasier, and the insurer said it also brought in the right to reject the coverage.
Why the court ruled for Uber
The Fifth Circuit agreed with the companies. The reference to the general statute carried over both the minimum coverage requirements and the right to decline coverage. A company that rejects the coverage has to follow the procedure in La. R.S. 22:1295. The opinion decides that legal question for this case. It does not read the declarations page of every later policy.
The judges noted that Louisiana’s taxi insurance statute does not require UM coverage. They also drew on two decisions of the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal. In Jean v. James River Insurance Co., that court held that Uber could waive underinsured motorist coverage for a driver who was hit by an underinsured motorist. In Willie v. Nguyen, the same court held that the right to reject coverage under state law preempts a New Orleans ordinance that required $1 million in UM coverage. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied review in both cases. The Fifth Circuit treated those denials as relevant, and it also noted that a writ denial is not itself a supreme court opinion on the merits.
Why the federal court answered the question itself
Guerrera asked the Fifth Circuit to send the question to Louisiana’s highest court. The federal judges declined. They found the statutes and the existing state appeals decisions pointed to the same answer, and they noted that the Louisiana Supreme Court had declined review in both Jean and Willie. A refusal to certify is not a holding by the Louisiana Supreme Court.
Case at a glance
- Case: Guerrera v. United Financial Casualty Co.; Rasier, L.L.C.; Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 25-30085
- Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, No. 2:24-CV-1354
- Panel: Judges King, Jones and Wilson, per curiam
- Decided: December 15, 2025
- Result: District court judgment affirmed. Motion to certify the question to the Louisiana Supreme Court denied.
The Louisiana insurance guide’s uninsured-motorist section discusses how a rejection, a lower limit, or an economic-only selection under La. R.S. 22:1295 relates to the rideshare statute. That discussion is about coverage selection. This opinion does not replace it, and it does not describe any later disposition.
Sources and case materials
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Guerrera v. United Financial Casualty Co., No. 25-30085, published opinion, December 15, 2025 (PDF)
- La. R.S. 45:201.6, Louisiana State Legislature
RideClaim.co is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice.
Hurt in a Louisiana rideshare accident?
Estimate your claim with the Louisiana calculator, then request a free case review. There is no cost and no obligation to hire anyone.
Comments
Comments are public. Please don't share private details about your own case here.