Quick Answer
California recently passed legislation targeting how medical liens are handled in personal injury cases, expanding driver screening requirements and reducing UM/UIM coverage minimums. This last point has residents deeply worried — and Texas residents want to know if they may see the same changes enacted in their state.
The state’s latest legislation regulates medical liens, expands driver-screening requirements and restricts certain financial relationships between attorneys and medical providers. It follows an earlier law that sharply reduced the uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage rideshare companies must provide. The changes have attracted attention beyond California because they emerged from a political fight between Uber and personal injury attorneys. The resulting laws will affect how rideshare injury claims are valued, investigated and litigated.
Texas riders should pay attention. California laws do not apply here, but Texas has already adopted some protections for rideshare companies and considered broader restrictions on evidence related to medical expenses. When the Texas Legislature returns in 2027, lawmakers could revisit many of the same issues.
On This Page
- What did California change?
- California reduced protection against uninsured drivers
- How does Texas rideshare law compare?
- Texas already limits some claims against rideshare companies
- Could Texas adopt similar medical-billing restrictions?
- What Texas lawmakers should learn from California
- Frequently asked questions
What did California change?
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 623 on June 25, 2026. The law combines rules affecting rideshare safety with restrictions on the medical expenses that may be recovered in certain Uber and Lyft accident claims.
For accidents occurring on or after Jan. 1, 2027, the law generally limits damages for care provided on a medical lien to the 70th percentile of charges reported by FAIR Health or a comparable database for similar services in the same area.
A medical lien allows an injured person to obtain treatment without paying the provider immediately. The provider instead expects payment from a future settlement or judgment. These arrangements can give uninsured patients access to care, but they can also lead to disputes over whether the charges reflect the reasonable value of the treatment.
California’s law also addresses what happens when a provider sells or transfers a lien. In those cases, the recoverable amount generally cannot exceed what was paid to acquire the lien. The transaction and related financial agreements become discoverable during litigation.
The law also:
- Prohibits attorneys from referring clients to providers in which the attorney or an immediate family member has a direct ownership interest.
- Prohibits kickbacks, fee splitting and certain payments tied to lien-based treatment.
- Requires more detailed medical bills using recognized procedure codes.
- Expands the offenses that can disqualify someone from driving for a rideshare company.
- Requires driver background checks before account activation and annually afterward.
- Allows women riders and participating women drivers to request matches with other women.
The medical-expense provisions are narrower than Uber’s original proposal, which would have affected automobile cases beyond the rideshare industry and sought to limit how much of a recovery could go toward attorney fees. The final law does not impose that proposed contingency-fee cap. Its principal restrictions apply to lien-based medical expenses in claims involving a network company or app-based driver. The full text of SB 623 explains the new limits and their Jan. 1, 2027, application date.
California also reduced protection against uninsured drivers
SB 623 is only one part of California’s recent rideshare overhaul.
Senate Bill 371, which became operative in 2026, reduced the uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage that transportation network companies must provide while a passenger is in the vehicle. The required coverage fell from $1 million per incident to $60,000 per person and $300,000 per incident.
Uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage, commonly called UM/UIM coverage, applies when someone else causes the collision but has no liability insurance or too little insurance to cover the resulting harm.
California retained the separate $1 million primary liability requirement that applies from the time a rideshare driver accepts a request until the trip ends. That policy generally matters when the rideshare driver is responsible for the accident. It should not be confused with UM/UIM coverage protecting passengers when another driver is at fault. California’s SB 371 identifies the new limits and coverage periods.
For passengers with serious injuries, that distinction can determine whether enough insurance exists to pay medical expenses, lost earnings and other damages.
How do Texas rideshare laws compare?
Texas and California use similar coverage periods, but the protections are not identical.
| Issue | California | Texas |
|---|---|---|
| Driver has accepted a ride | $1 million in primary liability coverage | $1 million aggregate liability coverage per incident |
| Driver is logged in but has not accepted a ride | At least $50,000 per person, $100,000 per incident and $30,000 for property damage, plus excess coverage | $50,000 per person, $100,000 per incident and $25,000 for property damage |
| UM/UIM protection during a passenger trip | $60,000 per person and $300,000 per incident | Required only where applicable under Texas’ general UM/UIM law, which permits written rejection |
| Driver background checks | Before activation and annually | Before authorization and at least annually |
| Medical-lien damages | New rideshare-specific database cap beginning with covered 2027 accidents | No comparable rideshare-specific database cap |
| Company liability for a driver’s actions | Governed by California law and the facts of the claim | Texas provides rideshare companies with specific statutory protection against some vicarious-liability claims |
Under Chapter 1954 of the Texas Insurance Code, $1 million in liability coverage applies once a driver accepts a ride and continues until the trip is completed. When the driver is merely logged in and waiting for a request, the lower $50,000-per-person and $100,000-per-incident limits apply.
The $1 million figure is frequently misunderstood. It does not mean that every person injured in every Uber or Lyft collision automatically has access to $1 million. It means that the driver must have at least $1 million in coverage – so they can actually provide up to that amount in damages if they are responsible for the accident.
Texas law also refers to UM/UIM coverage “where required” under the state’s general insurance rules. Those rules ordinarily require insurers to offer the coverage, but allow the named insured to reject it in writing. Texas therefore does not guarantee rideshare passengers a fixed UM/UIM benefit comparable to the amount California now requires.
That creates a serious concern when an uninsured driver hits a rideshare vehicle. The injured passenger may need to examine personal or household auto policies for UM/UIM coverage rather than assume the rideshare company’s $1 million liability policy will apply.
Texas already limits some claims against rideshare companies
Texas is not waiting for California to determine how much legal protection rideshare companies should receive.
In 2023, lawmakers enacted Chapter 150E of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The law can shield a transportation network company from vicarious liability for a driver’s conduct when the company satisfies its statutory obligations and the claimant cannot prove the required gross negligence by clear and convincing evidence.
The statute preserves claims based on a rideshare company’s own negligence or gross negligence in certain circumstances. However, it makes the distinction between driver negligence and company negligence especially important. Chapter 150E contains the current limitation on rideshare-company liability.
Texas also does not classify transportation network companies as common carriers. Drivers may be treated as independent contractors when the requirements in state law are met. Together, these provisions can make it harder to hold Uber or Lyft responsible solely because one of its drivers caused harm.
At the same time, Texas already requires rideshare companies to perform criminal-history and driving-history checks before approving drivers and at least annually afterward. The checks include a search of the national sex offender registry. The Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation can penalize companies that fail to follow the state’s requirements.
California’s annual-screening requirement, therefore, would not represent a significant change if copied in Texas. Questions about insurance and corporate liability would have a much greater effect on Texas riders.
Could Texas adopt similar medical-billing restrictions?
Yes. In fact, lawmakers recently considered going further.
Texas already limits recovery of medical or health care expenses to amounts “actually paid or incurred” by or on behalf of the injured person under Section 41.0105 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
In 2025, lawmakers considered Senate Bill 30, a broader proposal governing what evidence could be used to prove health care expenses in personal injury and wrongful death cases. Versions of the bill addressed letters of protection, third-party payments and benchmarks tied to Medicare rates. The House and Senate passed different versions but did not reach a final agreement before the session ended. Texas Legislature Online records the bill’s last action on May 30, 2025.
That unsuccessful proposal is the clearest indication that medical-expense evidence may return as a Texas legislative issue. California’s new law now gives supporters of similar restrictions another model to cite—even though California limited its provisions to rideshare-related cases.
As of September 2026, Texas has not filed a 2027 bill mirroring SB 623. Prefiling for the next regular session does not begin until Nov. 9, 2026. The 90th Texas Legislature will convene Jan. 12, 2027.
The likely question is not whether Texas lawmakers will discuss tort reform again. It is whether they will combine new restrictions on injury claims with meaningful protections for passengers.
What Texas lawmakers should learn from California
California’s experience should not be treated as a simple consumer victory.
The law creates legitimate safeguards against undisclosed financial arrangements and inflated lien transactions, and expands driver-screening rules. But those changes came alongside a substantial reduction in the insurance available when an uninsured or underinsured driver injures a rideshare passenger.
Texas should not repeat that tradeoff.
Texas riders already face uncertainty about UM/UIM coverage. Lawmakers considering rideshare reform in 2027 should focus first on establishing a meaningful, nonwaivable level of UM/UIM protection for passengers. Passengers who order rides should not be left with fewer options just because the negligent driver happened to be uninsured.
The central question is who absorbs the cost when a rideshare accident causes life-changing injuries. If lawmakers reduce the responsibility of rideshare companies and their insurers, those costs don’t simply disappear — they shift to injured families, health plans and public programs.
Frequently asked questions
Does California’s new rideshare law apply to Texas accidents?
No. California SB 623 applies to claims covered by California law. It does not change the rights of someone injured in a Texas rideshare accident.
The legislation may still influence future proposals in other states, particularly because Uber promoted broader restrictions before reaching the California compromise.
Does Uber or Lyft provide $1 million in coverage in Texas?
Texas requires $1 million in aggregate liability coverage from the time a driver accepts a ride until the trip is completed. That coverage generally applies to liability arising from the conduct of the rideshare driver.
It is not a guarantee that $1 million will be available in every accident. Coverage depends on the driver’s app status, fault and the policy provisions.
What if another driver hits an Uber passenger and has no insurance?
The rideshare driver’s liability policy may not cover harm caused by someone else. The passenger may need to look for UM/UIM coverage through an applicable rideshare policy, a personal auto policy or a resident family member’s policy.
Because Texas permits UM/UIM coverage to be rejected in writing, its availability should be verified rather than assumed.
Does Texas require annual background checks for rideshare drivers?
Yes. Texas requires rideshare companies to perform criminal-history checks and review driving records before authorizing a driver and at least annually afterward. Annual sex-offender-registry checks are also required.
Could Texas pass a law similar to California SB 623 in 2027?
It could. Texas considered significant restrictions on medical-expense evidence in 2025, although the proposal did not become law. Rideshare-specific liability protections have also been part of Texas law since 2023.
Any new proposal would need to be introduced and approved during the 2027 legislative process.
Can an injured passenger sue Uber or Lyft in Texas?
Potentially, but company liability is not automatic. The available claims depend on the company’s conduct, its compliance with Texas rideshare regulations, the driver’s status and the facts surrounding the accident.
Talk to an Uber or Lyft Rideshare Lawyer in Houston
If you were injured in a car accident with an Uber or Lyft vehicle, or Waymo, contact Hilda Sibrian at the The Law Offices of Hilda Sibrian today for a free, no-obligation consultation with a Lyft and Uber accident lawyer. Our dedicated attorneys are available to discuss the details of your case during a free consultation.
The Law Offices of Hilda Sibrian serve all of Houston and Texas, including Sugar Land, Missouri City, La Porte, Beaumont, Pasadena, The Woodlands, The Heights, Bellaire, Kingwood, Baytown and of course Houston proper.
Call the Law Offices of Hilda Sibrian today for a free consultation, or fill out our online contact form.
