Every instance of the word "livery" in my insurance policy's exceptions list is followed by an exemption for "share-the-expense" car pools (i.e. the policy is conventional in that it does cover accidents that occur during so-called "share-the-expense" carpooling.)
I know there's a broad precedent already in-place for what this sort of carpool definition may encompass. But has Waze Carpool per se been tried, and, if so, found lacking in this?
Several Reddit threads ([CA] /r/wazecarpool, [CA] /r/Insurance) have put forth the idea that it'd qualify, but nobody's actually confirmed it.
Waze Carpool considers itself “…a fresh way to share the road and the cost of commuting”, emphasizing that it's a way to “Share the cost of gas and tolls”… but do insurance companies agree?
PART B - MEDICAL PAYMENTS COVERAGE
Exclusions
We do not provide Medical Payments Coverage for any "insured" for "bodily injury:"
…
- Sustained while "occupying" "your covered auto" when it is being used as a public or livery conveyance. This exclusion (2.) does not apply to a share-the-expense car pool.
PART C - UNINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE
EXCLUSIONS
…
B. We do not provide Uninsured Motorists Coverage for "bodily injury" sustained by any "insured:"
…
- While "occupying" "your covered auto" when it is being used as a public or livery conveyance. This exclusion (B.2.) does not apply to a share-the-expense car pool.
PART D - COVERAGE FOR DAMAGE TO YOUR AUTO
Exclusions
We will not pay for:
- Loss to "your covered auto" or any "non-owned auto" which occurs while it is being used as a public or livery conveyance. This exclusion (1.) does not apply to a share-the-expense car pool.