An act to amend Section 11580.24 of the Insurance Code, relating to insurance.
Summary
AB 2361 would amend California Insurance Code Section 11580.24, which governs personal vehicle sharing programs and how privately insured passenger vehicles are treated when they are made available through those programs. The bill keeps the basic rule that a private passenger vehicle used in a compliant personal vehicle sharing program is not to be classified as a commercial, for-hire, permissive-use, or livery vehicle solely because it is shared. It also preserves the existing framework requiring the sharing program to provide proof of insurance compliance, maintain trip records, prevent commercial use, and facilitate the hardware and signage needed to operate the vehicle in the program.
The main substantive change is in liability allocation when a loss or injury occurs while someone other than the owner is operating or controlling the vehicle. Under current law, the personal vehicle sharing program generally assumes all of the owner’s liability in that period. AB 2361 would instead require the program to assume the owner’s liability for bodily injury or property damage to injured third parties in the amounts stated in the program agreement, but not below the statutory minimums for private passenger vehicles. The bill also preserves rules on when the program’s liability continues, how disputed control claims are handled, and the program’s duty to defend and indemnify the owner, while allowing exclusions if the owner made an intentional or fraudulent material misrepresentation or acted in concert with a driver who failed to return the vehicle.
Impact
AB 2361 would narrow and clarify the liability exposure of personal vehicle sharing programs under Insurance Code Section 11580.24 by tying assumed liability to the agreement between the program and the owner, so long as the coverage is not below California’s minimum financial responsibility limits. It would not change the basic regulatory treatment of shared private passenger vehicles, but it would affect how insurers, vehicle owners, and sharing platforms allocate risk, defend claims, and determine coverage during a sharing period. The bill also reinforces the ability of the owner’s insurer to exclude coverage during shared use and preserves protections against cancellation or nonrenewal solely because a vehicle is offered through a compliant sharing program.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have received favorable initial committee treatment, passing the Assembly committee vote 16-0 on a do pass as amended motion before being re-referred to Appropriations. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded floor or hearing debate to indicate broader public controversy in the materials supplied. The available vote history suggests the measure was viewed positively or at least noncontroversially at the committee stage.
Contention
The likely point of contention is the shift from a rule requiring the personal vehicle sharing program to assume all of the owner’s liability to a more limited obligation defined by the program agreement, subject to minimum statutory coverage. That change may concern consumer advocates, injured third parties, or insurers if they view it as reducing certainty or protection in shared-vehicle claims. On the other hand, personal vehicle sharing platforms and possibly vehicle owners may support the bill because it clarifies risk allocation and creates exceptions for owner misconduct, such as fraud or collusion with a driver who fails to return the vehicle.