Uber Car Accident Attorney Panorama City 2026: Uber & Lyft Passenger Claims, SB 371 Coverage Cut

By Ted H. Ravan, Ravan Law, Los Angeles

If you were the passenger in a rideshare vehicle when the crash happened in the East San Fernando Valley, the question of who pays for your injuries turns on two things that most passengers do not know about until they need them. First: which app phase the driver was in at the moment of impact (app off, app on and waiting for a ride, or ride in progress). That phase determines which insurance layer responds. Second: the January 1, 2026 change under Senate Bill 371 that cut uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage during an active ride down to $60,000 per person and $300,000 per accident, materially reducing the protection available to a passenger hit by an uninsured third-party driver on the 405, the 5, the 170, the 118, or Van Nuys Boulevard. If a construction zone on the Van Nuys Boulevard Light Rail project contributed to the crash, a claim against LA Metro, the City of Los Angeles, or Caltrans is also potentially in play, and the six-month Government Code section 911.2 administrative claim deadline runs from the date of the collision on that piece. A uber car accident attorney panorama families call inside the first two weeks preserves both tracks; families who wait typically lose the public-entity portion of the case before they realize it was ever available.

What Is a “Rideshare Crash” for a Passenger in the East Valley?

A rideshare crash is any motor vehicle collision involving an Uber or Lyft driver operating in a phase covered by the Transportation Network Company (TNC) framework under California law. For an East San Fernando Valley passenger, that includes crashes in Panorama City, Van Nuys, North Hollywood, Sun Valley, Pacoima, Arleta, Sylmar, San Fernando, Mission Hills, and Sepulveda, plus the interstate corridors and state routes that carry passengers into and out of the Valley (the 405, the 5, the 170, and the 118).

The passenger sitting in the back of a rideshare vehicle is legally protected under whichever coverage layer applies to the specific crash phase. That protection is materially different from the coverage available to the same passenger sitting in a private vehicle. What most passengers do not know is that the coverage layer is not automatic. It has to be established, the insurance carriers involved have to be identified, and the deadlines running under both California’s Government Claims Act (six months) and the general personal injury statute of limitations (two years) have to be tracked from the day of the crash. That is why a uber car accident attorney panorama residents call runs the file on both tracks in parallel from the first meeting.

The Three App Phases and Which Insurance Layer Covers

California rideshare coverage runs on a three-phase framework that applies to every Uber and Lyft driver on the road in the East San Fernando Valley in 2026. The phase determines the insurance response. The passenger’s protection changes phase by phase.

Phase 1: App off. The driver is not logged into the Uber or Lyft app. From the coverage standpoint, this is a private driver in a private vehicle. Only the driver’s personal auto insurance responds to a crash. The TNC does not provide coverage. There is no rideshare passenger in this phase because the app is off.

Phase 2: App on, waiting for a ride request. The driver is logged in and waiting for a ride. No ride has been accepted. Coverage under the current California TNC framework as amended by SB 371 (effective January 1, 2026) provides $50,000 per person and $100,000 per incident in bodily injury coverage, plus $30,000 in property damage coverage, alongside a $200,000 excess liability policy. There is no passenger in the vehicle in this phase because no ride has been accepted, but a third-party motorist injured by the rideshare driver during Phase 2 has access to the Phase 2 policy limits.

Phase 3: Ride in progress or en route to pickup. The driver has accepted a ride request and is either heading to the pickup or driving the passenger to the destination. This is the phase in which the passenger is actually in the vehicle. Coverage is:

$1,000,000 in third-party liability when the rideshare driver is at fault, covering both the passenger and any third-party motorist or pedestrian struck by the rideshare vehicle.
$60,000 per person and $300,000 per accident in uninsured and underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage for the passenger when the crash was caused by an uninsured or underinsured third-party driver. This is the layer that was cut on January 1, 2026 under SB 371.

The Phase 3 $1 million third-party liability layer is the layer most passengers understand. If the rideshare driver caused the crash, the passenger’s injury claim runs against that $1 million policy. What passengers frequently do not know about is the UM/UIM layer, which is now materially thinner than it was.

The 2026 UM/UIM Cut Under SB 371: Why Passengers Are More Exposed Than Before

The single most consequential rideshare coverage change families need to understand is the January 1, 2026 cut to uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage during an active ride. Before SB 371, the UM/UIM layer during Phase 3 sat at $1 million per accident, mirroring the third-party liability limit. Passengers hit by an uninsured driver during a ride were covered up to the same $1 million ceiling.

Effective January 1, 2026, SB 371 cut Phase 3 UM/UIM coverage to $60,000 per person and $300,000 per accident. The Phase 3 $1 million third-party liability layer is unchanged. What changed is the UM/UIM layer that responds when an uninsured or underinsured driver caused the crash. That is a materially thinner backstop for a passenger who is not at fault, is seriously injured, and finds out the driver who struck the rideshare vehicle carried only California’s minimum liability coverage or no coverage at all.

The gap matters most in East San Fernando Valley crashes for two reasons. First, California’s post-January-2025 auto insurance minimums ($30,000 per person / $60,000 per accident / $15,000 property damage under SB 1107) are still low relative to the medical bills produced by a freeway-speed crash on the 405 or the 5. When an at-fault third-party driver carries only the state minimum, the passenger’s UM/UIM layer is the backstop for anything above that. Under the pre-SB-371 framework, the backstop went up to $1 million. Under SB 371, the backstop stops at $60,000 per person on the UM/UIM side (plus the driver’s minimum liability underneath). Second, the East San Fernando Valley sees a materially higher uninsured motorist rate than the state average, so the scenario the SB 371 cut most affects (passenger hit by uninsured driver) is disproportionately more likely to happen here.

Every uber car accident attorney panorama residents work with in 2026 needs to explain this gap to a passenger client before the case is settled. A settlement that ignores the UM/UIM layer, or that fails to identify a passenger’s additional personal UM/UIM coverage that may stack on top, leaves money on the table that the passenger cannot recover once the case closes.

Panorama City and East San Fernando Valley Rideshare Corridors

The East San Fernando Valley rideshare crash pattern concentrates on a handful of corridors that a uber car accident attorney panorama practice sees repeatedly. The corridor determines the fact pattern and often determines the responsible public entity where a roadway factor contributed to the collision.

Van Nuys Boulevard. The primary north-south arterial through Panorama City. Currently under active civil construction for the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor Light Rail project (Metro Rail), with construction that began in July 2026 per the current LA Metro schedule. Lane shifts, detour patterns, temporary signalization, and construction-zone hazards along the Van Nuys Boulevard corridor from Sylmar south through Van Nuys and into North Hollywood are producing a materially higher collision rate than the same segment saw two years earlier.
Roscoe Boulevard. The primary east-west corridor through Panorama City and adjacent Sun Valley, Arleta, and Northridge. Heavy rideshare volume for pickups at retail centers and residential neighborhoods, plus a large number of signalized intersections.
Sepulveda Boulevard. A north-south arterial paralleling the 405 through the eastern edge of Van Nuys and Sherman Oaks. Rideshare pickups and drop-offs along the Sepulveda corridor generate a steady rear-end and side-impact collision volume.
Interstate 405 (San Diego Freeway). The primary north-south freeway serving the East San Fernando Valley, running through Sherman Oaks and connecting to the Sepulveda Pass south toward Westwood and the Westside. Catastrophic rideshare crashes on the 405 through Sherman Oaks and the Sepulveda Basin segments are the most consequential rideshare matters in the East Valley.
Interstate 5 (Golden State Freeway). The primary north-south freight and passenger corridor through Sylmar, Sun Valley, and North Hollywood. Heavy commercial truck traffic mixed with rideshare passenger volume produces predictable crash patterns.
State Route 170 (Hollywood Freeway). The east-west connector through North Hollywood and Studio City. Shorter freeway with heavy congestion at the 101 interchange and the 134 split.
State Route 118 (Ronald Reagan Freeway). The east-west freeway through Sylmar, Granada Hills, Northridge, and Chatsworth in the northern San Fernando Valley. Heavy commuter volume and construction zones at various interchanges.

Practical result: rideshare crashes in Panorama City and the East Valley are not one fact pattern. Each corridor has its own crash profile, its own responsible public entity where a roadway factor is in play, and its own catchment of Metro construction, City of Los Angeles surface streets, or Caltrans freeway jurisdiction.

The Van Nuys Boulevard Light Rail Construction Zone: Metro, City of LA, or Caltrans

Construction on the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor Light Rail project along Van Nuys Boulevard began in July 2026 and will continue for several years. The construction zone brings a new set of public-entity defendants into rideshare and other motor vehicle crash cases along the corridor.

LA Metro (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority). The transit agency responsible for the project. Where the construction contractor’s work zone setup, temporary traffic control, signage, lane closures, or worksite hazards contributed to a collision, LA Metro is potentially the responsible public entity as the project owner and administrator. Metro claims run through the LA Metro claims office.

City of Los Angeles. Van Nuys Boulevard as a City arterial. Where the underlying roadway surface, permanent signage, signal timing, or coordination between the City and the Metro project contributed to a collision, the City of Los Angeles is potentially the responsible public entity. Claims run through the City Clerk’s office under the standard Government Code section 910 process.

Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). Where the Van Nuys Boulevard collision occurred on or immediately adjacent to a Caltrans-maintained freeway on-ramp, off-ramp, or interchange (such as the 405 ramps at Van Nuys, or the 5 ramps at Roscoe), Caltrans is potentially the responsible public entity. Caltrans claims run through the state Government Claims Program.

For a passenger injured in a rideshare crash along the Van Nuys Boulevard construction zone in 2026, the responsible public entity depends on the specific location and the specific mechanism of the crash. In practice, the strongest cases plead against multiple public entities in parallel (Metro, City, and Caltrans where relevant) to preserve every available theory while the underlying facts are developed through the case.

The construction-zone factor also matters for the private-defendant analysis. Where a rideshare driver was following the temporary traffic control and struck by another driver who ignored a construction sign, the third-party driver’s private-vehicle carrier is the primary defendant on the crash itself; the public-entity theories address any incremental fault attributable to defective work zone setup.

The Government Claims Act Six-Month Deadline

When any public entity is potentially a defendant, California’s Government Claims Act imposes a strict administrative claim requirement before any lawsuit can proceed. California Government Code section 911.2 requires the injured person or family to file a formal administrative claim with the responsible public entity within six months of the date of the collision. The deadline runs from the date of the crash, not from the date the family figures out that a public entity was involved.

The administrative claim must comply with the content requirements of Government Code section 910: claimant name and address, address for notices, date and place of the incident, general description of the injury, name of the public employee(s) involved if known, and amount claimed information. A letter to Metro, the City, or Caltrans that does not meet the section 910 requirements is not a valid claim. Each public entity receives its own claim; a single letter to “the government” does not preserve claims against multiple entities.

Once the public entity denies the administrative claim, the family has six months from the date the rejection notice is personally delivered or deposited in the mail to file the civil lawsuit against the entity under Government Code section 945.6(a)(1), or two years from accrual if the entity does not act on the claim within 45 days under section 945.6(a)(2). Late-claim relief under Government Code section 911.4 exists but is discretionary and hard to obtain.

Missing the six-month deadline closes off the public-entity portion of the case regardless of the strength of the underlying dangerous-condition or construction-zone proof, and often takes a materially large piece of the recovery off the table with it. This is a core area of focus for Ravan Law. In East San Fernando Valley rideshare cases with a Van Nuys Boulevard construction-zone factor, the six-month deadline is the piece of the file that most often gets missed.

Catastrophic Injuries in East Valley Rideshare Crashes

Not every rideshare crash in the East Valley is the same. Cases involving catastrophic outcomes require detailed medical projections, life-care planning, and a legal strategy built around the full lifetime cost of the injury. The categories to watch for in a Panorama City or East Valley rideshare case:

Traumatic brain injury from an unrestrained head strike against the side window, headrest, or door frame in a passenger position, or from a rollover on the 405 or the 118.
Spinal cord injury with permanent paraplegia or quadriplegia. High-speed 405 or 5 rear-end and side-impact crashes are the fact pattern most commonly associated with spinal cord injuries in rideshare passengers.
Multi-point orthopedic fracture in a passenger position (femur, tibia, pelvis, upper extremity) requiring surgical repair and long-term rehabilitation.
Internal organ injury requiring surgical intervention (splenectomy, partial hepatectomy, bowel resection).
Severe burns in the rare rideshare fact pattern of post-collision fuel fire.
Wrongful death, in fatal rideshare collisions on freeway corridors.

At Ravan Law, catastrophic-injury work is the kind of matter the firm is built around, coordinated directly by attorney Ted H. Ravan. The measure of a case at this level is not the emergency room bill; it is the lifetime cost of the injury projected across the injured person’s remaining life expectancy, a projection that requires a life-care planner and a forensic economist to build properly. Insurance carriers move fast on serious rideshare cases to settle inside the first three weeks, before the medical picture stabilizes and before the SB 371 UM/UIM gap has been analyzed against the passenger’s own personal auto policy for stackable coverage. That is exactly why families should not settle in the first three weeks.

Deadlines for a Panorama City Uber or Lyft Crash Case

California rideshare crash cases have two independent deadlines that operate on separate tracks. A Panorama City passenger’s file must preserve both.

Deadline	Statute	Applies To
Two years from the date of the crash	Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1	Civil lawsuit against the rideshare driver, the third-party driver, the TNC (Uber or Lyft), and other private defendants
Six months from the date of the crash	Government Code section 911.2	Administrative claim against LA Metro, the City of Los Angeles, Caltrans, or any other public-entity defendant (Van Nuys Boulevard construction zone factor, dangerous roadway condition)
Six months from rejection notice	Government Code section 945.6(a)(1)	Civil lawsuit against the public entity after the administrative claim is rejected
Two years from accrual	Government Code section 945.6(a)(2)	Civil lawsuit against the public entity if the entity does not act on the administrative claim within 45 days

The two deadlines operate independently. Missing the two-year civil deadline bars the case against the private defendants. Missing the six-month administrative deadline bars the case against the public defendant. In a mixed case, both have to be preserved on their own timelines.

For minor passengers, the two-year civil deadline is tolled under Code of Civil Procedure section 352(a) until the minor turns 18, giving until age 20 to file the personal injury claim in their own name. The six-month Government Code deadline is not tolled the same way for minors. A minor injured in a rideshare crash along the Van Nuys Boulevard construction zone still needs the six-month administrative claim filed inside the six-month window. Government Code section 911.4 provides limited late-claim relief specifically for minors, but the relief is discretionary and has its own outside deadline.

Any settlement on behalf of a minor requires court approval through the minor’s compromise process under Probate Code sections 3500 et seq., with settlement funds held under Probate Code sections 3600 et seq., typically in a blocked account until the child reaches majority.

Related Practice Areas at Ravan Law

An East San Fernando Valley rideshare crash case shares its evidence discipline and deadline framework with the rest of the firm’s serious injury practice.

Personal Injury. A Los Angeles personal injury lawyer at Ravan Law (also referenced as Ravan Injury Law) builds every case on the personal injury foundation of duty, breach, causation, and damages, and calibrates the effort and expert workup to the seriousness of the injury.
Uber Car Accident. The focus of this guide. An Uber accident lawyer Los Angeles rideshare victims call handles Uber car accident matters under the California TNC framework, updated to reflect SB 371 effective January 1, 2026. The specific East Valley focus (Panorama City, Van Nuys, North Hollywood, Sun Valley, Sylmar, San Fernando, Pacoima, Arleta) is one of the geographies Ravan Law covers actively.
Car Accident. A Los Angeles car accident lawyer handles standard motor vehicle collision matters. A car accident lawyer Los Angeles residents call after a serious crash on the 405, the 5, the 170, or the 118 runs the same evidence-preservation discipline described in the deadline section above.
Truck Accident. A Los Angeles truck accident lawyer handles commercial trucking matters under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations overlay. Panorama City and the East Valley see heavy I-5 and 118 commercial truck traffic that produces catastrophic collision volume.
Dog Bite. A Los Angeles dog bite lawyer handles serious bite matters under California Civil Code section 3342 strict liability.
Slips & Falls. A Los Angeles slip and fall lawyer handles premises liability for serious falls in Panorama City commercial centers and apartment complexes.

Whether the matter is an Uber car accident, a car accident, a truck accident, a dog bite personal injury claim, or a slip and fall, the two-year statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1 governs the private-defendant portion, and the six-month administrative claim deadline under Government Code section 911.2 governs the public-entity portion where one applies.

A Look at How These Cases Can Unfold

The following hypothetical scenarios illustrate how these cases can unfold. They are not based on any specific client and are provided for educational purposes only.

Scenario one: passenger injured in an Uber crash on the 405 through Sherman Oaks caused by an uninsured driver. A rideshare passenger heading south on the 405 from Panorama City to LAX is struck by an uninsured third-party driver who runs a merge. The Uber driver was in Phase 3 (ride in progress); the passenger sustains a herniated cervical disc requiring surgical repair. The uber car accident attorney panorama pleads the third-party driver as the primary defendant, but the third-party driver has no insurance to respond, so the passenger’s recovery on the third-party side is limited to what can be collected from the driver personally. The Phase 3 UM/UIM layer through the TNC responds up to the post-SB-371 limit of $60,000 per person, materially less than the pre-2026 $1 million cap. The passenger’s own personal auto policy is analyzed for stackable UM/UIM coverage, which is standard practice in any 2026 rideshare case. The two-year CCP section 335.1 deadline governs the private-defendant portion; no public entity is a defendant on these facts because no roadway factor contributed.

Scenario two: passenger injured in a Lyft crash on Van Nuys Boulevard in a Metro construction zone. A Lyft passenger heading north on Van Nuys Boulevard through Panorama City is struck when the Lyft driver, following a temporary traffic pattern set up by the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor Light Rail construction, is broadsided by a third-party driver who ignored a temporary detour sign. The passenger sustains multi-point orthopedic fractures. The uber car accident attorney panorama pleads the third-party driver as the primary defendant, the Lyft TNC Phase 3 $1 million third-party liability layer as the secondary defendant on the theory that the Lyft driver failed to yield appropriately in the construction zone, and files a Government Code section 910 administrative claim against LA Metro within 90 days of the crash on the theory that the construction contractor’s temporary traffic control setup contributed to the collision. Parallel Government Code section 910 claims are filed against the City of Los Angeles and Caltrans where the specific location supports either. All three public-entity claims run on the six-month Government Code section 911.2 deadline; the private defendants run on the two-year CCP section 335.1 deadline.

Scenario three: fatal Uber crash on the 118 through Sylmar. An Uber vehicle carrying two passengers is involved in a fatal collision on the 118 through Sylmar after a Phase 3 rear-end at freeway speed. One passenger is killed; the other sustains catastrophic injuries. The wrongful death claim on behalf of the deceased passenger runs under Code of Civil Procedure section 377.60 standing rules; the surviving passenger’s personal injury claim runs on standard rideshare framework. Both cases are pleaded against the third-party at-fault driver and against the Uber TNC Phase 3 $1 million third-party liability layer. If a Caltrans dangerous-condition factor contributed (defective median barrier, inadequate shoulder, sign obstruction), a Government Code section 910 administrative claim against Caltrans is filed within the six-month window. The catastrophic injury component supports detailed life-care planning, forensic-economics workup, and (for the wrongful death) full economic and non-economic damages under Code of Civil Procedure section 377.61.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the current Uber and Lyft insurance limits in California?

The three-phase framework as amended by SB 371 effective January 1, 2026: Phase 1 (app off) is the driver’s personal insurance only. Phase 2 (app on, no ride accepted) is $50,000 per person / $100,000 per incident bodily injury plus $30,000 property damage, and a $200,000 excess liability policy. Phase 3 (ride in progress or en route to pickup) is $1,000,000 in third-party liability, plus $60,000 per person / $300,000 per accident in uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage (down from the pre-2026 $1 million UM/UIM ceiling).

Why is the UM/UIM cut under SB 371 such a big deal?

Because a passenger who is not at fault, is seriously injured, and is hit by an uninsured or underinsured driver has to look to the UM/UIM layer for the coverage the third-party driver does not have. Before SB 371 the UM/UIM layer during Phase 3 was $1 million per accident. As of January 1, 2026 it is $60,000 per person / $300,000 per accident. A serious injury with medical bills above $60,000 (which is any injury requiring surgery, ICU care, or extended rehabilitation) leaves the passenger with a gap that has to be closed by other coverage layers or absorbed by the passenger.

What if the rideshare driver’s app was off?

Phase 1 applies. Only the driver’s personal auto insurance responds. The TNC (Uber or Lyft) does not provide coverage. A passenger in the vehicle in Phase 1 is not on an active ride.

Who is a public entity in a Van Nuys Boulevard construction zone crash?

Depending on the specific facts: LA Metro (as the project owner of the East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor Light Rail project), the City of Los Angeles (as the road authority for Van Nuys Boulevard as a City arterial), and Caltrans (where the crash location involves a state route or a freeway ramp). Strong cases plead against multiple public entities in parallel to preserve every available theory.

What is the deadline to file a claim against LA Metro?

Six months from the date of the crash under California Government Code section 911.2. The administrative claim must comply with the content requirements of Government Code section 910. Missing the six-month deadline closes off the Metro portion of the case regardless of the underlying facts.

What is the deadline to file a civil lawsuit against Uber, Lyft, or the third-party driver?

Two years from the date of the crash under Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1. This deadline is independent of the six-month administrative claim deadline that applies to public-entity defendants.

Can I stack my own personal auto UM/UIM policy on top of the TNC coverage?

In many cases yes, depending on the terms of your own personal auto policy and the specific circumstances of the crash. This is one of the core reasons a rideshare passenger with a serious injury should not settle inside the first few weeks; the analysis of stackable coverage on the passenger’s own policy is a routine part of a properly worked rideshare case in 2026.

What if I was walking or driving my own car when a rideshare vehicle hit me?

You are a third party, not a passenger. The applicable phase is the phase the rideshare driver was in at the moment of impact. If the driver was in Phase 3 and at fault, the Phase 3 $1 million third-party liability policy responds to your claim. If the driver was in Phase 2 and at fault, the $50,000/$100,000/$30,000 Phase 2 policy plus the $200,000 excess policy responds. If the driver was in Phase 1, only the driver’s personal auto insurance responds.

What damages can a rideshare crash victim recover?

Two categories of compensatory damages: economic damages (past and future medical expenses, past and future lost wages, loss of earning capacity where the injury impairs a career, out-of-pocket costs) and non-economic damages (pain and suffering, emotional distress, permanent disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of consortium for a spouse). Punitive damages are a separate third category under Civil Code section 3294, available against private defendants where the clear and convincing evidence standard of malice, oppression, or fraud is met. Punitive damages are not recoverable against public entities under Government Code section 818.

Should I settle with the insurance carrier in the first few weeks?

Almost never in a serious case. The medical picture in a serious rideshare crash case is not fully developed until months after the crash. Multi-point orthopedic injuries require months of physical therapy before the treating physicians can offer a durable prognosis. TBI outcomes take three to six months to declare. Life-care planning for a spinal cord injury or a severe TBI takes twelve to eighteen months post-injury. A carrier who settles at week three has priced against the emergency room bill, not against the projection that will exist by month twelve.

Does the same team handle Uber car accident, car accident, truck accident, dog bite, and slip and fall matters?

Yes. A Los Angeles personal injury lawyer, an Uber accident lawyer Los Angeles rideshare victims call, a Los Angeles car accident lawyer, a Los Angeles truck accident lawyer, a Los Angeles dog bite lawyer, and a Los Angeles slip and fall lawyer are all the same team at Ravan Law.

Speak Directly With Attorney Ted H. Ravan

If you were the passenger in an Uber or Lyft crash in Panorama City, along the Van Nuys Boulevard construction zone, on the 405 through Sherman Oaks, on the 5 through Sylmar or Sun Valley, on the 170 through North Hollywood, on the 118 through Granada Hills or Northridge, or anywhere else in the East San Fernando Valley, the decisions made in the first days and weeks matter more than most passengers realize. The two-year personal injury deadline under Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1 seems generous, but the six-month administrative claim deadline under Government Code section 911.2 begins running on the day of the crash whenever LA Metro, the City of Los Angeles, or Caltrans is potentially involved through the Van Nuys Boulevard Light Rail construction zone or another roadway factor. Insurance carriers move fast on serious cases, and the January 1, 2026 SB 371 cut to Phase 3 UM/UIM coverage means passengers hit by uninsured drivers have less protection than they had a year earlier.

Contact Ravan Law to speak directly with attorney Ted H. Ravan. Every case receives personal attention from the attorney, not a case manager. Consultations are free and confidential. Call (424) 465-2500 to discuss your case, whether the crash happened on Van Nuys Boulevard in Panorama City, on Roscoe Boulevard in Sun Valley or Arleta, on Sepulveda Boulevard through Van Nuys, on the 405 through Sherman Oaks, on the 5 through Sylmar, on the 170 through North Hollywood, on the 118 through Northridge, or anywhere else across Los Angeles and Southern California.

Attorney Advertising. Ted Ravan, Ravan Law, Los Angeles, CA. This content is general information, not legal advice. Every case depends on its specific facts.