Rideshare and delivery app drivers using their personal vehicles typically have coverage under two auto insurance policies: one provided through the service they are drivers for (such as Uber, Lyft or DoorDash) and their personal auto policy. Depending on the scope of coverage and exclusions in the two policies there could be a potential for a gap in coverage or duplicative coverage. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals recently addressed this issue, construing a personal auto policy in a manner that found an ambiguity and avoided a gap in coverage. This case is important for personal auto insurers to review.

In Ramirez v. Voyager Indemnity Insurance Co., – N.W.3d –, 2026 WI App 21; 2026 WL 668115 (Wis. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2026), a delivery driver for DoorDash had a personal auto policy through First Chicago Insurance Company and delivery coverage through DoorDash’s insurer,  Voyager Indemnity Insurance Company. When an accident occurred, the driver had just completed several food deliveries and was on his way to downtown Milwaukee. He was not making a delivery but had the app open on his phone.

The First Chicago personal policy excluded coverage for “bodily injury or property damage incidental to or emanating from the … operation of any vehicle … for delivery related business.” (Bold face removed.) The term “delivery related business” was defined as “the ownership, maintenance or operation of any auto while it is being used to carry … food for compensation or a fee,” with other specifics. The Voyager policy issued to DoorDash provided coverage only while a driver is “actually fulfilling a delivery request made through a delivery application” and specified that coverage “ends when the delivery operator has completed the delivery request(s) made through the delivery application.” (Bold face removed.)

A passenger who was injured in the other vehicle sued the driver, DoorDash and both insurers. Both insurers filed motions for summary judgment. First Chicago argued that the personal auto policy excluded coverage because the bodily injury was “incidental to or emanating from” the use of the vehicle for “delivery related business.” Voyager argued that its policy did not provide coverage because the driver was not making a delivery at the time of the accident. The trial court granted both insurers’ motions, finding no coverage under either policy for the accident.

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed in part, concluding that the First Chicago exclusion was ambiguous and that the policy provided coverage. It explained that, with respect to the “incidental to or emanating from” wording, “[a] reasonable insured would not know how broadly to read this language and could reasonably expect coverage under the First Chicago [personal] policy while driving in Milwaukee and not actively engaged in a food delivery (e.g., by accepting a delivery on the DoorDash app).” The court further reasoned that the insured would reasonably believe that “the Voyager policy covered him when he was making deliveries and the First Chicago policy covered him when he was not making deliveries.” Moreover, “[b]asing insurance coverage on whether or not an app was open on [the driver’s] phone, especially when no explicit language exists in the policy to address such a situation, would lead to absurd results that frustrate an insured’s reasonable expectations.” The court acknowledged public policy concerns about a potential gap in coverage but did not base its decision on that ground.

A potential difficulty that personal auto insurers may face in this context is that they may not be familiar with the wording of all policies issued to ridesharing and delivery app companies, and those policies may vary in their wording. Personal auto insurers trying to exclude coverage while drivers are driving for ridesharing or delivery purposes may need to tread carefully to avoid a potential finding of ambiguity while at the same time trying to avoid either a gap or duplication in coverage.