A federal judge in New York has dismissed a racketeering lawsuit by ride-sharing firm Uber against several injury law firms, doctors and pain clinics alleging they cons
pired to extract inflated auto insurance claims payments through staged accidents, unnecessary surgeries and lawsuits.
Judge Orelia E. Merchant in Brooklyn ruled that Uber failed to show that the defendants were p
ry, as required to prove a violation under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
In order for RICO claims to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must offer “more than labels and conclusions” and must meet a “heightened particularity requi
rement” when pleading acts sounding in fraud or mistake, the opinion noted.
Uber contended that the law firms recruited passengers and referred them to the participating doctors and clinics. Uber claims the passengers were “uninjure
d or only lightly injured” but false evidence was used to conjure serious injury. Uber alleged that the law firms initiated litigation using the defendant doctors’ causation s
tatements to assert that the passen
on-economic damages under New York’s no-fault auto insurance Law and “fraudulently induce larger settlements” from Uber.
Uber noted that the New York judge’s dismissal is inconsistent with what judges have decided in similar cases in other states. “We believe this is a wrongly decided opi
nion and are considering all options available to us moving forward,” an Uber spokesperson told Insurance Journal.
Watch More Image Part 2 >>>
Since at least 2019, Uber alleged, the group of defendants has conspired “to exploit pass
engers in purported or actual minor vehicle collisions.” Uber provided five state court cases in which it w
as named as a defendant and further alleged the defendants engaged in similar schemes in 12 other instances.
To establish a civil RICO claim, a plaintiff must show there was conduct by an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, as well as injury to business or pro
perty as a result of the RICO violation. If successful, a plaintiff is entitled to threefold damages.
The judge found that Uber failed to show that the lawyers and medical providers were an “‘association-in-fact” enterprise with a common purpose, relationships, and sufficient longevity. Uber failed to show that the lawyers an
d doctors acted with a common purpose to defraud Uber rather than that they acted in their own busin
ess interests. Uber also failed to show how the medical clinics managed to take bribes, misdiagnose passengers, or produce false causation statements.
