Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog

A recent summary judgment order is a reminder that, in insurance coverage disputes, straightforward arguments can still win the day. In a coverage action arising from dozens of underlying personal injury suits, the court adopted a clear, text-based approach to the duty to defend—and ordered the insurer to provide a defense.

In Uber Techs., Inc. et al. v. Am. Transit Ins. Co., No. 24 Civ. 1207 (AT) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2026), the court found that Uber Technologies was entitled to a defense in 23 personal injury suits brought against it and other defendants in New York state court. Those suits arose from car accidents involving for-hire drivers who used the Uber app and were insured by American Transit. The complaints allege that Uber is both directly and vicariously liable for the drivers’ conduct.

American Transit denied coverage, arguing that Uber was not an insured under its policies and that only the drivers were insureds. The policies define an insured to include “anyone liable for the conduct of an ‘insured’ described [in the policy], but only to the extent of that liability.” Shortly after the denial, Uber filed a declaratory judgment action against American Transit.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In its motion for partial summary judgment, Uber sought (1) a declaration that American Transit breached its contractual obligations by refusing to defend Uber in the personal injury lawsuits, and (2) declarations regarding other rights and responsibilities under the parties’ contracts. Uber argued that the allegations of vicarious liability in each underlying case triggered American Transit’s duty to defend and, if necessary, indemnify.

In its cross-motion, American Transit sought a declaration that it had no obligation to defend Uber in the underlying suits. It argued that it owed no duty to defend or indemnify because the undisputed material facts showed that Uber was not liable for the conduct of its co-defendant independent drivers and because Uber was not an additional insured under the applicable policy.

The court rejected American Transit’s arguments and granted partial summary judgment to Uber, holding that American Transit must defend Uber in the underlying lawsuits.

The Court’s Analysis

In rejecting American Transit’s arguments, the court focused on the policies’ language, which required American Transit to defend any insured against a lawsuit seeking damages. The court rejected American Transit’s contention that Uber did not meet the policies’ definition of an “insured.” It reasoned that the underlying suits alleged Uber was liable for the drivers’ conduct—and the drivers were insureds under the policies.

The court agreed with Uber that allegations of vicarious liability were sufficient to establish a reasonable possibility of coverage, triggering the duty to defend—even if American Transit could reasonably conclude Uber would not ultimately be liable in the underlying suits. Taking the complaints’ allegations as true, Uber could be liable for the conduct of insured drivers who used its app, to the extent of that liability. Standing alone, the court found those allegations sufficient to trigger the duty to defend.

The court also rejected American Transit’s argument that Uber failed to carry its burden to show it was an insured, given the allegations in the underlying complaints. And it declined to consider extrinsic evidence in determining whether the policies afforded a defense.

Finally, the court dismissed American Transit’s contention that Uber was not an insured because it would ultimately be found not vicariously liable. Relying on New York Court of Appeals precedent, the court emphasized that an insured’s ultimate responsibility is not part of the duty-to-defend inquiry when the complaint’s allegations are sufficient to trigger a defense.

Key Takeaways for Policyholders

Jurisdiction-Specific Rules Shape the Duty-to-Defend Analysis. The court applied New York’s “four corners” rule, which asks whether the allegations within the four corners of the complaint, read against the policy language, trigger a duty to defend. Other jurisdictions apply different frameworks, such as an “eight corners” approach (considering the complaint and the policy together) or hybrid approaches that permit consideration of extrinsic evidence in limited circumstances.

Ultimate Liability Does Not Determine the Duty to Defend. Courts commonly observe that the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify. That is because the duty to defend typically turns on the allegations and the potential for coverage, not on the insured’s ultimate liability. As the Uber court recognized, the duty to defend does not depend on the evidentiary record. By contrast, the duty to indemnify generally depends on the facts ultimately established in the case.

The Right to Independent Counsel. The Uber court found that Uber was entitled to independent counsel in the subset of underlying lawsuits asserting direct-liability theories against it. The court reasoned that a finding of direct liability could reduce the insurer’s exposure, depending on how the underlying courts apportioned fault between Uber and the drivers. For example, if a driver were found not negligent, questions could remain about whether Uber was negligent (including based on allegations about the app’s distracting effects). That dynamic created a conflict of interest: insurer-appointed counsel could be incentivized to pursue arguments that benefited the insurer at Uber’s expense. The court therefore held that Uber was entitled to independent counsel in the direct-liability subset of cases, at the insurer’s expense. Independent counsel can be an important safeguard against conflicts of interest in coverage disputes.

Uber is a reminder for policyholders—particularly those who operate as service providers—of the importance of understanding their rights and the duties their insurers and the insurers of other parties owe them. That understanding is fundamental to achieving coverage and ensuring that all available coverage options are considered before a policyholder’s own insurance limits are eroded by costly litigation.