Which is part of the problem. Away from Planet Uber, if your journey is undertaken for work purposes (which going to meet a customer clearly is) you are "at work", and should be covered by work-related insurance. That's why regular taxi drivers have to have commercial insurance; private car insurance doesn't cover operating as a driver-for-hire.
I've heard this argument before, but for me it doesn't wash specifically because the secret formula used to determine how much you will pay for auto insurance includes a location component and a mileage component. If you're putting on more miles, and they know you live in an urban area, they can just price your insurance payments to account for your use of the vehicle. The only time you really need more coverage than they ordinarily provide is when you are transporting a fare. They shouldn't be allowed to deny you coverage while you're en route to a destination, because traveling to destinations is an ordinary thing for drivers to do.
The fun part is that, despite the all the penny-pinching (and the hype), Uber is hemorrhaging money.
As far as I can tell they are scumbuckets, but I am still in favor of the legal changes they are attempting to work, because I am against the monopoly that the entrenched taxi industry possesses in those places where that is the case. Where I actually live, we don't have one big taxi company that runs everything. We have a number of individuals who run single-vehicle taxi services. Of course, if they become large and successful enough (and I don't mean by eating a lot of drive-through) they can add vehicles and drivers to their businesses, and eventually get enough money to lobby for protectionist laws that will cause the same problem here. And since here is in the sticks, the amount of money necessary for a bribe might be much less than it is in the city.