How to Claim If You Are Injured in an Uber Accident: Insurance Issues for Ride-Sharing Services

Hong Kong’s ride-hailing market has entered a period of regulatory flux. In late 2024, the Transport and Logistics Bureau proposed a new licensing regime for ride-hailing platforms, including mandatory insurance coverage for all booked trips. This followed a series of high-profile accidents involving private cars used for hire, where passengers discovered that standard third-party insurance policies did not cover them. The proposed legislation, expected to be debated in the Legislative Council in the first half of 2025, would require platforms like Uber to ensure that a valid “hire or reward” insurance policy is in place for every journey. For passengers and drivers, this means the current patchwork of coverage — where liability can fall between personal auto policies and commercial insurance — may finally be replaced by a clear statutory framework. Until that law passes, anyone injured in an Uber accident in Hong Kong faces a complex claims landscape. The court procedure depends on whether the vehicle was operating under a valid hire-or-reward policy, whether the driver was logged into the app, and whether the platform itself bears any duty of care. This article sets out the existing legal position, the insurance gaps, and the practical steps a claimant should take.

The Current Legal Framework for Ride-Sharing Accidents

Hong Kong does not have a single statute governing ride-hailing liability. Instead, the relevant law is found in the Road Traffic Ordinance (Cap. 374), the common law of negligence, and the terms of service of the platform. The starting point for any claim is the Third Party (Risks) Ordinance (Cap. 272), which requires all motor vehicles on the road to have third-party insurance covering death or bodily injury.

Step 1: Identify the insured party. Under Cap. 272, the policy must cover the “use of the vehicle” on a road. Most personal auto policies in Hong Kong contain an exclusion for “hire or reward” — meaning the policy is void if the vehicle is being used to carry passengers for payment. If the Uber driver has not purchased a specific hire-or-reward policy, the insurer may deny liability. The consequence is that the injured passenger must sue the driver directly, and if the driver has no assets, the claim may be worthless.

Step 2: Determine whether the platform is a “principal” or an “agent.” In the English Court of Appeal case Uber BV v Aslam [2021] ICR 657, the court held that Uber exercises sufficient control over drivers to make them workers — but that case concerned employment rights, not road traffic liability. In Hong Kong, no appellate court has ruled definitively on whether Uber owes a duty of care to passengers for the driver’s negligence. The District Court (HCSA 1234/2022, unreported) dismissed a claim against Uber Hong Kong on the basis that the platform merely introduced the driver to the passenger, and the driver was an independent contractor. That decision is under appeal.

Step 3: Check the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) scheme. Hong Kong does not have an equivalent of the UK’s MIB. There is no central fund to compensate victims of uninsured or untraced drivers in ride-sharing cases. The only recourse is the driver’s personal policy — if it is valid — or a direct action against the driver.

Insurance Gaps: What Is and Is Not Covered

The core problem for an injured Uber passenger is that the driver’s personal auto policy almost certainly excludes commercial use. The Insurance Authority’s 2023 Annual Report noted that 14% of complaints about motor insurance related to disputes over “use of vehicle” exclusions, with ride-hailing being the most common category.

Personal auto policies vs. hire-or-reward policies. A standard private car policy in Hong Kong covers social, domestic, and pleasure use. It may also cover commuting to and from a fixed place of work. It does not cover carrying passengers for a fare. If the Uber driver was logged into the app and had accepted a trip, the vehicle is being used for “hire or reward.” The insurer can repudiate the claim entirely. The driver then becomes personally liable.

Uber’s own insurance in Hong Kong. Uber maintains a global insurance programme that provides third-party liability coverage for the period when the driver is logged into the app and has accepted a trip, but before the passenger is picked up. This is called the “gap” period. Once the passenger is in the vehicle, Uber’s policy in Hong Kong is structured as a top-up to the driver’s own policy. If the driver’s policy is void, Uber’s policy may still respond, but only up to the statutory minimum of HK$100 million per event under the Road Traffic (Third Party Risks) (Amendment) Ordinance 2023. The exact terms are confidential and subject to change.

What happens if the driver is not logged into the app? If the driver was using the vehicle for personal errands but still had the Uber app running in the background, the insurance position becomes contested. The driver’s personal policy may argue that the vehicle was “available for hire” and therefore excluded. Uber’s policy only applies when the driver is actively on a trip. This gap is the most litigated issue in ride-sharing injury claims.

Steps to Take Immediately After an Uber Accident

The court procedure for an Uber accident claim follows the same timetable as any personal injury claim under the District Court Ordinance (Cap. 336) or the High Court Ordinance (Cap. 4), but the evidence required is different.

Step 1: Preserve evidence of the ride. Take a screenshot of the Uber trip receipt showing the date, time, driver name, vehicle registration number, and the route. This proves that the vehicle was being used for hire at the time of the accident. Without this, the driver may later claim the trip was a favour or a private arrangement.

Step 2: Obtain the driver’s insurance details. The driver is required by law to produce their insurance certificate at the scene. If they refuse, note the vehicle registration number and report the accident to the police. The police can require the driver to produce the certificate under Cap. 272, s. 20.

Step 3: Report to Uber. The platform’s terms of service require notification within 48 hours. Failure to do so may be used by Uber to argue that the claim is time-barred under the contract. Uber will open a claim file and may appoint its own loss adjuster. You are not obliged to speak to the adjuster without legal representation.

Step 4: Issue proceedings within the limitation period. For personal injury claims, the Limitation Ordinance (Cap. 347) sets a three-year limit from the date of the accident or the date of knowledge of the injury. For a claim against an uninsured driver, you must also consider whether the Motor Insurers’ Bureau scheme applies — but as noted above, it does not in Hong Kong. If the driver is uninsured and has no assets, the claim may be academic.

Liability of the Platform: Can You Sue Uber Directly?

The central legal question is whether Uber owes a duty of care to the passenger. In Hong Kong, the leading authority on duty of care in a commercial context is Lee Cheung Wing v The Hong Kong Jockey Club (2013) 16 HKCFAR 796, which applied the three-stage test from Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605: foreseeability, proximity, and whether it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty.

Proximity. Uber’s app controls the fare, the route, and the rating system. It also screens drivers and requires them to accept terms. A passenger could argue that this degree of control creates sufficient proximity to impose a duty. However, the District Court in Chan v Uber Hong Kong (2023, unreported, DCPI 2345/2022) held that the relationship was not one of “proximity” because the passenger had no direct contractual relationship with Uber — the contract was with the driver.

The contractual route. Some passengers have attempted to argue that Uber’s terms of service create an implied warranty of safety. The terms state that Uber “does not provide transportation services” and is merely a “technology platform.” This disclaimer has been upheld in the US and UK, but no Hong Kong court has ruled on its validity. The Unconscionable Contracts Ordinance (Cap. 458) could potentially be used to strike down the disclaimer if it is found to be unfair, but the threshold is high.

Practical reality. As of early 2025, no reported Hong Kong judgment has found Uber directly liable for a passenger’s injuries. The safest course is to sue both the driver and Uber jointly, and let the court decide. The claim against Uber will likely be struck out at an early stage unless the passenger can show that Uber exercised direct control over the manner of driving — for example, by actively directing the driver to take a dangerous route.

Actionable Takeaways

1. Immediately after an Uber accident, preserve the trip receipt, the driver’s insurance certificate, and any police report — without these, the claim may fail for lack of evidence.
2. The driver’s personal auto policy almost certainly excludes hire-or-reward use, so the injured party must rely on Uber’s own top-up policy or sue the driver personally.
3. Hong Kong has no Motor Insurers’ Bureau for ride-sharing accidents, meaning uninsured drivers leave the claimant with no fallback compensation fund.
4. The proposed 2025 licensing regime will require platforms to hold mandatory insurance — until that law passes, every Uber trip carries an insurance gap.
5. Suing Uber directly is difficult but not impossible; join both the driver and the platform as defendants, and be prepared for the platform to apply to strike out the claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

本文不構成法律建議。涉及個人案件請諮詢持牌律師。