* Keep in mind two things when reading this Insurance Journal article about the governor’s veto of the ridesharing bills: 1) The ridesharing bills passed both chambers with huge, veto-proof majorities; and 2) The insurance industry is quite powerful in this here state…

HB 5331 would have required rideshare dispatchers to “carry commercial liability insurance in the amount of $350,000 combined single limit per accident.”

HB 4075 would have provided that the private passenger auto “insurer of a motor vehicle used in a commercial ridesharing arrangement may deny coverage during the time the vehicle is made available for dispatch or used in a commercial ridesharing arrangement.” It also would have required that commercial rideshare drivers and vehicle owners be made aware of that provision. […]

The Illinois Insurance Association and the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America said they are disappointed about the veto of the bills, which they say would have protected consumers by closing the gaps in insurance coverage that leave drivers, passengers and the public vulnerable if an accident occurs.

“PCI is deeply disappointed in this veto because it is vitally important that the vehicles used by commercial ride-sharing services are properly insured and the public is protected,” Jeffrey Junkas, Illinois regional manager for PCI, said in a statement released by the organization. “These bills sought to create a comprehensive, uniform statewide approach to protecting consumers and provided a firm foundation for innovation. They offered clear insurance rules that don’t leave policyholders or accident victims in the lurch because of coverage disputes. They also would have helped to avoid the creation of a confusing and costly patch work of local regulations.”

Kevin Martin, executive director of the IIA, said his group welcomes new transportation choices but that “consumer safety is of utmost concern. We supported the provisions in the state house bills as they would have helped to prevent all Illinois drivers from subsidizing the riskier driving activities of a small number of drivers and the companies that facilitate these programs.”

However, the bill’s House sponsor is Rep. Mike Zalewski, an ally of Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who wanted the veto. If Z sides with Rahm, then the bills might not even be called for override votes.