Uber alleges that false medical records inflated injury claims against it and FedEx. A federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled that Uber may pursue its racketeering suit even though its insurer initially paid defense costs and settlements.
Uber and FedEx accuse Philadelphia injury firm Simon & Simon of a false medical records scheme; Uber’s complaint describes a $1.5 million demand in one underlying case. Uber alleges that after it sought a doctor’s records and testimony, the firm dropped Uber from about 30 similar cases. On October 13, a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled that Uber can pursue its racketeering claims even though its insurer initially paid for lawyers and settlements. Judge Mark A. Kearney said even a claimed loss of one dollar can support standing, while leaving the cause and extent of Uber’s loss for later proceedings.
Simon & Simon and attorney Marc Simon dispute Uber’s account. In their earlier bid to dismiss the suit, they argued that many underlying injury cases had settled or produced favorable outcomes and that the cases sought ordinary monetary recovery. In their latest motion, they argued that Uber had suffered no qualifying financial injury because Farmers Insurance Exchange paid the defense costs and settlements. **The October ruling decides who may sue. It does not establish fraud, and Uber’s allegations remain unproved.**
The 3 sources behind this story: 3 court records, each linked with what it shows. Free with the weekly Litigation Sentinel brief.
The October opinion identifies a payment outside the insurer’s initial checks. Uber presented evidence that it reimbursed employees for their out-of-pocket costs to attend a trial allegedly connected to the scheme. Simon & Simon and Marc Simon did not dispute that Uber incurred those costs in the related injury case. They argued that the amount was “trivial,” that Uber was not a defendant in that particular case, and that the accident involving an Uber driver, rather than any alleged scheme, caused the expense.
Kearney found a factual dispute over what caused Uber to incur the cost. The judge also declined to impose a minimum dollar threshold: “We see no reason why a person seeking even one dollar in racketeering damages somehow loses standing.” One dollar was the judge’s example, not an award or a finding that Uber’s total loss was that amount. The employee reimbursements gave the court a concrete payment Uber says it made from its own funds, despite Farmers’ payments in other cases.
That distinction became necessary because the defense had found an apparent gap in Uber’s money trail. Farmers paid Uber’s lawyers and initially paid settlements and judgments in underlying suits. Simon & Simon and Marc Simon argued that any later reimbursement came from Aleka Insurance, another insurance company, rather than Uber. Uber responded that Aleka is its own captive insurer and that Aleka’s reimbursement of Farmers reduces Uber’s balance sheet. The judge described discovery showing Aleka, an Uber subsidiary, reimbursing Farmers, while recognizing that questions remained about the financial path.
Free weekly intelligence for executives responsible for litigation exposure: the named decision-makers, dollar exposure, operating consequence, and next development.
The defense asked the court to enter judgment against Uber on its racketeering claims before trial on the theory that the insured company had not paid the claimed losses directly. Kearney rejected that legal theory as well as the request for judgment on the employee expense. In the opinion’s account, Farmers paid lawyers and claimants on Uber’s behalf; buying liability insurance did not strip Uber of the ability to sue over alleged harm to Uber.
The opinion also applies the collateral source rule: payment from an independent source does not, by itself, eliminate an injured party’s claim. Kearney held that Uber has standing even though Farmers paid some or most of the litigation expenses, attorney fees and settlements at issue. The ruling concerns Uber’s ability to press its case, not whether each payment resulted from fraud or how much Uber could recover.
Simon & Simon and Marc Simon cited a recent Second Circuit ruling in which a reinsurance company and a management agency sued personal-injury lawyers over allegedly staged construction accidents. Kearney drew the opposite implication for this case. That ruling found the reinsurance company and management agency lacked standing and that the employers and general contractors sued in the underlying claims sustained more direct injury. Here, the judge wrote, Uber was sued in the underlying cases and Farmers was not. The defense motion sought judgment against Uber, not its co-plaintiff FedEx.
Uber’s account of the alleged scheme appears in Kearney’s earlier opinion on motions to dismiss. The companies allege that injury clients were directed through treatment and examinations that generated records portraying serious, lasting harm from vehicle accidents. They allege that medical reports then supported future-care estimates and larger settlement demands. In one case recounted in the opinion, the complaint says the lawyers demanded $1.5 million and later dismissed Uber after it sought discovery from a pain physician; that case ended in a defense verdict for the remaining defendant.
The companies further allege that similar records moved claims beyond Pennsylvania’s no-fault process or compulsory arbitration and into higher-value litigation. Those are the companies’ allegations, not findings about the patients’ injuries or the professionals’ conduct. The May ruling held that the pleaded claims could proceed to discovery. October’s ruling answered the narrower question raised by the insurer payments.
**P&L translation:** the financial question now has two parts. Farmers initially paid substantial categories of expense, while Uber points to its own employee reimbursements and the effect of Aleka’s payments. Kearney has allowed Uber to keep litigating on that record. Under the court’s amended schedule, fact discovery closes December 21, 2026, further judgment motions are due January 14, 2027, and a nine-day jury trial is set to begin March 15, 2027. The open question is whether Uber can prove that the alleged conduct caused recoverable losses.
The readiness check has five questions about your reported litigation practices. Use the summary to choose an operating question to explore.
Take the 2-minute readiness check →Free weekly intelligence for executives responsible for litigation exposure: the named decision-makers, dollar exposure, operating consequence, and next development.