Its a subsidiary that provides some amorphous driver/rider insurance plan from a subcontractor called James River insurance company that they go out of the way to confirm has "an A- rating" from A. M. Best. that rating is their credit rating, not an indicator of their overall business performance or likeability. It showed up in 2014, and only appears available or relevant in the city of San Francisco where there ostensibly exists a regulation of some sort to mandate the existence of insurance for "ride sharing" providers.
why the insurance brokering subcontractor of a rideshare goup is filing a lawsuit against a municipality is pretty interesting, but if i were a gambling man I would guess its important for a subsidiary to file this lawsuit instead of Uber so as to help strictly maintain the illusion that Uber somehow is not an employer. That having been said, if Uber isnt an employer, and neither is the subsidiary, its very difficult to see a way this lawsuit will succeed. What it can do --through proxying cash from Uber-- is become a very protracted and expensive reminder why government should step the fuck off.