Wisconsin Appeals Court Finds Gig Delivery Exclusion Ambiguous in DoorDash Crash Case
Thursday, March 12th, 2026 Auto Insurance Industry Legislation & Regulation LitigationA Wisconsin appeals court ruled that a personal auto insurer must cover a crash involving a DoorDash driver, finding the policy’s gig delivery exclusion unclear and therefore unenforceable. The March 10 decision centers on a December 2020 accident in Milwaukee involving driver Xavier D. Caruthers and passenger Lizbeth Hernandez Ramirez. Caruthers had completed several deliveries and was driving toward downtown Milwaukee to seek new orders when the crash occurred. He had the DoorDash app open but was not actively fulfilling a delivery request.
Two insurance policies were at issue. Caruthers carried a personal auto policy from First Chicago Insurance Company, while DoorDash’s drivers were insured through Voyager Indemnity Insurance Company during specific delivery periods. Both insurers denied coverage. First Chicago cited a policy exclusion for accidents arising from ‘delivery related business,’ while Voyager argued its coverage applied only when a driver was actively completing a delivery request on a direct route to pickup or drop-off.
A trial court agreed with both insurers. It ruled that Caruthers was engaged in delivery-related business because he had the app open and intended to continue delivering. It also found that Voyager’s policy did not apply because Caruthers was not fulfilling a delivery request at the time of the accident.
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed the ruling against First Chicago. Judges focused on the exclusion’s wording, particularly the phrase ‘incidental to or emanating from’ delivery-related activity. The court concluded that a reasonable policyholder would not understand how broadly that language should apply. A driver traveling through the city without an active delivery request could reasonably expect coverage under a personal auto policy.
The court also rejected the idea that coverage could hinge on whether an app was open on a phone. Without clear language addressing that scenario, the court said such an interpretation could lead to unreasonable results. The decision emphasized a long-standing legal principle that ambiguous insurance exclusions must be interpreted narrowly and in favor of the insured.
The appeals court did agree with Voyager’s denial of coverage. Its policy applied only during a defined delivery window, including when a driver was actively completing a request or traveling directly to a pickup or drop-off location. Because Caruthers was repositioning for potential orders, the conditions for Voyager’s coverage were not met.
For claims adjusters, the ruling highlights a recurring issue in gig economy claims: the coverage gap between personal auto policies and platform-provided commercial policies. The case shows how courts may scrutinize broad delivery exclusions when they fail to address common gig work scenarios such as waiting for orders or repositioning between deliveries. Adjusters handling gig-related losses should review policy wording closely and document driver status at the time of the crash, including app activity and trip acceptance records.
The court also pointed to a regulatory gap. Wisconsin law already requires rideshare companies and drivers to maintain insurance both while transporting passengers and while logged into an app waiting for a request. The judges noted that delivery drivers face similar risks but are not covered by the same statutory framework. The case stops short of requiring legislative action but signals that courts and policymakers may examine the issue more closely as gig delivery work continues to expand.
