Peer-to-Peer Car Sharing Programs - Insurance and Liability
HB1186 revises Maryland law governing peer-to-peer car sharing programs, with a focus on insurance coverage, liability allocation, and related consumer disclosures. The bill repeals older provisions that treated certain peer-to-peer car sharing insurance as secondary in some circumstances and instead requires the car sharing program to ensure that, during each car sharing period, the shared vehicle owner and driver are covered by a motor vehicle liability policy meeting at least the state minimum security requirements. It also clarifies when the program’s coverage is primary, including for third-party claims, and creates a new section addressing when a program must provide primary security if it fails to give notice, cooperate, or make required disclosures.
The bill also updates the Transportation Article to align peer-to-peer car sharing with existing insurance rules, including special treatment for replacement vehicles and a new rule that the Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund is not required to provide coverage to a shared vehicle driver for a shared vehicle that is not a replacement vehicle. It authorizes programs to charge and transfer responsibility for tolls, fees, charges, and fines incurred during the car sharing period, and excludes peer-to-peer car sharing programs from the definition of “owner” for red-light camera citations. The effective date is October 1, 2026.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history was strongly favorable and essentially unanimous: the bill passed the House 127-0 and the Senate 45-0 before being signed into law. No committee transcript was provided, but the final votes indicate broad bipartisan agreement and little visible opposition.
The main policy issues addressed by the bill are insurance responsibility, consumer notice, and liability shifting between the car sharing platform, the vehicle owner, and the driver. The most notable point of potential contention is the bill’s reallocation of risk and costs, especially the requirement that platforms provide primary coverage in certain situations and the explicit limits on MAIF coverage. Another practical issue is the bill’s treatment of exclusions in personal auto policies and its authorization for platforms to pass through tolls, fines, and other charges to drivers, which could affect consumers and insurers alike.
HB1186 amends the Insurance Article and Transportation Article to establish a more detailed statutory framework for peer-to-peer car sharing in Maryland. It repeals prior language on secondary coverage in certain cases, adds new coverage and disclosure requirements, clarifies that platform-provided insurance must meet minimum financial responsibility standards, and creates a new section governing primary liability for third-party claims when the platform fails to comply with notice, cooperation, or disclosure obligations. It also excludes peer-to-peer car sharing programs from the definition of “owner” for red-light camera enforcement and authorizes pass-through of tolls, fees, charges, and fines to the driver.
The bill appears to have enjoyed very strong support. It passed both chambers unanimously, with no recorded dissenting votes, suggesting broad agreement that Maryland needed a clearer insurance and liability structure for peer-to-peer car sharing. The absence of recorded committee testimony in the provided materials limits insight into earlier debate, but the final legislative action indicates a consensus-oriented measure rather than a controversial one.
The most significant substantive issues are how liability is allocated among the platform, the shared vehicle owner, the shared vehicle driver, and insurers. Potential points of concern include the bill’s requirement that peer-to-peer car sharing programs carry primary coverage in certain circumstances, the ability of insurers to exclude coverage for vehicles made available for sharing, and the limitation on Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund coverage for non-replacement vehicles. Consumer advocates or insurers could also focus on the bill’s disclosure requirements and the authorization to charge drivers for tolls, fees, and fines, while car sharing platforms may have been attentive to preserving contractual indemnification rights and limiting exposure to vicarious liability.