No, according to a September 2026 Illinois Supreme Court ruling that stopped Uber from using a widow's own account terms to force her family's wrongful death lawsuit into arbitration. The court held in Geller v. Uber Technologies that the widow's personal Uber terms of use covered only disputes tied to her own use of the app, not a claim arising from her husband's fatal trip. This is an Illinois Supreme Court decision, and it binds only Illinois state courts, not the rest of the country.
What did the Illinois Supreme Court decide in Geller v. Uber?
The court decided that a widow's wrongful death lawsuit over her husband's fatal Uber ride does not have to go to arbitration, because her own account terms with Uber never reached a dispute about someone else's ride. Mark Geller died on April 19, 2022, as a passenger, when his driver lost control of the vehicle on an expressway; the crash also fatally injured the driver, Ejaz Rathore. His widow, Gloria Sheridan Geller, sued Uber, its subsidiary Rasier, LLC, and the driver as independent administrator of Mark's estate, raising wrongful death claims, survival claims, and a negligence theory based on res ipsa loquitur.
Uber asked the circuit court to send everything to arbitration. It pointed to two separate agreements: the terms of use Mark had accepted as a rider, and the separate terms of use Sheridan had accepted years earlier under her own account. The circuit court split the case. It sent the survival claims to arbitration because those claims relied on Mark's own agreement. It refused to send the wrongful death claims to arbitration, because Sheridan's agreement, in the circuit court's words, "talks about her usage; not her husband's usage." Uber appealed only the wrongful death ruling.
The Illinois Appellate Court reversed, holding that Sheridan's agreement had handed the question of arbitrability itself to an arbitrator, not a judge. The Illinois Supreme Court disagreed and reversed the appellate court, restoring the circuit court's order. The wrongful death counts go back to Cook County circuit court. The survival counts stay dismissed, because the estate had already voluntarily dropped them once arbitration was ordered on those claims.
What's the difference between a wrongful death claim and a survival claim?
A survival claim belongs to the person who was hurt, and it covers the harm that person suffered up until death. A wrongful death claim belongs to the surviving spouse and next of kin, and it covers the loss they suffered after the death. Illinois created the Survival Act, now section 27-6 of the Probate Act, to let a personal representative continue lawsuits the decedent could have brought himself for injuries before he died. Illinois created the separate Wrongful Death Act in 1853 (it was first called the Injuries Act), because at common law there was no claim for causing another person's death, and an injured person's own claim ended when he died. As the court put it, quoting earlier cases, it was "cheaper for the defendant to kill the plaintiff than to injure him."
Under Illinois law, that distinction shaped this case. Money recovered under the Wrongful Death Act is not treated as part of the deceased person's estate; it belongs directly to the surviving spouse and next of kin. Because a wrongful death claim is not an asset the decedent owned during his life, his own arbitration agreement cannot sign it away after his death. A survival claim works differently: it is the decedent's own claim, so his own contract, including an arbitration clause he personally accepted, can reach it. That is why the circuit court let Mark's agreement compel arbitration of the survival claims but not the wrongful death claims, and why Uber had to rely on Sheridan's own agreement for the wrongful death claims.
Why couldn't Sheridan's own Uber account terms force arbitration of the wrongful death claims?
Because her agreement only covered disputes tied to her own use of Uber, and the wrongful death claims came from Mark's use of Uber and his death, not hers. Sheridan's terms of use, like Mark's, contained an arbitration section and a delegation clause telling an arbitrator to decide "any disputes relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability or formation" of the arbitration agreement. The same section, though, defined every arbitrable dispute by reference to "your access to or use of the Services," personal injury "in connection with your use of the Services," and third-party claims "in relation to your use of the Services." Sheridan is the "you" in her own contract. Mark is not.
The Illinois Supreme Court held that this language mattered on two separate questions. First, there was no clear and unmistakable evidence that Sheridan agreed to let an arbitrator, instead of a judge, decide whether the wrongful death claims belonged in arbitration in the first place. Second, even setting delegation aside, Sheridan never actually agreed to arbitrate a dispute over her husband's separate contract and separate use of the app. Arbitration is a matter of consent, and the court found no consent here on either question.
Who decides whether a dispute belongs in arbitration, a judge or an arbitrator?
Ordinarily a judge does, unless the parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to let an arbitrator make that call instead. Many arbitration agreements include a delegation clause that tries to hand even the question of arbitrability itself to the arbitrator. Under this ruling, an Illinois court still has to check, first, whether the specific dispute in front of them is one the parties actually agreed to delegate. The appellate court in this case treated Sheridan's delegation clause as covering the wrongful death dispute automatically. The Illinois Supreme Court said that skipped a step: a judge has to confirm the delegation clause actually reaches this particular dispute before handing the arbitrability question over to an arbitrator.
The court also pointed out that federal arbitration law does not change this. As the court read it, the Federal Arbitration Act makes an arbitration clause enforceable for a controversy "arising out of such contract or transaction," and it does not require arbitration beyond what the parties actually agreed to. Because the wrongful death claims arose out of Mark's relationship with Uber and his death, not Sheridan's contract, federal law gave Uber no separate route around the consent problem. For more on how arbitration clauses generally work in injury cases, see our overview of mediation and arbitration in injury cases.
One thing the court did not decide is whether Uber's arbitration terms are unconscionable, meaning so one-sided or hidden that a court should refuse to enforce them regardless of consent. The appellate court below had already ruled on that question, finding Uber's terms neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court on the narrower consent ground described above, and because that resolved the case, the justices said there was no reason to also address unconscionability, so that issue remains untouched by this opinion.
What happened to the survival claims from Mark's estate?
They stayed out of court. The circuit court had already sent the survival claims to arbitration based on Mark's own agreement, applying the rule of the Illinois Supreme Court's 2012 decision in Carter v. SSC Odin Operating Co., which the 2026 opinion describes as holding that an arbitration agreement signed by the decedent binds the estate to arbitrate a survival claim but not a wrongful death claim. After that ruling, the estate orally moved to voluntarily dismiss the survival counts, and the circuit court allowed the dismissal. The opinion does not say whether those claims were ever pursued in arbitration. That dismissal was never part of this appeal, and the Supreme Court's 2026 opinion left it alone.
The result is a split outcome inside the same lawsuit. The part of the case that was legally Mark's own, the survival claims for what he suffered before he died, was ordered to arbitration under his own agreement and then voluntarily dismissed by the estate. The part of the case that belongs to his widow and any other next of kin, the wrongful death claims for what they lost after his death, stays in the circuit court, because neither Mark's contract nor Sheridan's own contract reached it.
Does this Illinois ruling protect families in other states?
No, and you should not assume it does. This is a decision of the Illinois Supreme Court interpreting Illinois contract law, the Illinois Wrongful Death Act, and the Illinois Survival Act. It binds courts inside Illinois. Courts elsewhere have faced similar arguments about whether an app company can use a person's own account terms to compel arbitration of a dispute arising from someone else's use of the service, and they have not all agreed. The Geller opinion itself notes a 2022 Nevada Supreme Court decision involving wrongful death and personal injury claims that sent the arbitrability question to an arbitrator. If a family member's crash happened outside Illinois, the terms of use, the state's wrongful death and survival statutes, and the court's approach to delegation clauses can all come out differently. Read the agreement and the applicable state law before assuming either outcome applies to you.
How long do you have to file a wrongful death claim in Illinois?
Generally two years from the date of death. Section 2(d) of the Wrongful Death Act sets that two-year deadline, subject to exceptions. Section 2(e) allows more time, five years after the death if the death resulted from violent intentional conduct, or one year after the criminal case ends if the defendant is charged with one of the listed homicide offenses, which include reckless homicide. That extension applies only against the person who committed the act or was charged with the crime; the statute says it does not extend the deadline against any other person or entity, so it would not extend the time to sue a company like Uber. Section 2(f) separately lets a beneficiary who was under 18 when the claim arose bring the action within two years after turning 18. A separate rule also applies to certain claims tied to a Criminal Victims' Escrow Account. Deadlines for related claims, including survival claims and any claim against a government entity, are set by different statutes and can be shorter or run differently, so do not rely on the wrongful death deadline for every claim arising from the same crash. When in doubt, treat every filing deadline as strict and confirm it against the current text of the statute that actually applies to your claim.
What should you do if a family member died as a rideshare or delivery passenger?
Start by documenting whose account booked the trip, because that is the account whose terms a company is most likely to point to first.
Find the trip receipt or confirmation email and note which app account, and whose name, booked the ride or delivery.
Do not assume that your own account's terms of use apply to a claim over a family member's separate ride, or that theirs applies to yours.
Save the driver's name, the vehicle information, and any police or crash report before records age out of the app or the department's system.
Mark the date of death on a calendar right away, since a wrongful death filing window is measured from that date and does not pause for grief or paperwork.
Keep a copy of whatever terms of use you personally accepted with the company, since it may be raised later even in a claim that is not really about your own use of the app.
Where can you read the actual Geller v. Uber opinion?
The full opinion is posted by the Illinois Supreme Court itself, and it is worth reading directly instead of relying only on a summary, including this one. You can read the official opinion in Geller v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 2026 IL 132066, filed September 24, 2026. The Wrongful Death Act is published on the state legislature's site as 740 ILCS 180, and the survival provision is published as 755 ILCS 5, article 27.
This article explains a court ruling in general terms and is not legal advice for any individual situation.
Frequently asked questions
What did the Illinois Supreme Court rule in Geller v. Uber Technologies?
The court ruled that Uber could not force a widow's wrongful death claim into arbitration using her own personal account terms, because those terms covered only disputes arising from her own use of the app, not a dispute over her husband's separate, fatal ride. The wrongful death claims go forward in the circuit court.
Is a wrongful death claim the same thing as a survival claim in Illinois?
No. A survival claim is the injured person's own claim for what happened to him before he died, and it becomes part of his estate. A wrongful death claim is a separate claim that belongs to the surviving spouse and next of kin, accrues only at death, and is never treated as an asset of the deceased person's estate.
Can a company use my own account terms to force arbitration of a claim about someone else's accident?
Not automatically. In Geller, the Illinois Supreme Court read Uber's terms, which tied arbitrable disputes to "your use of the Services," as reaching only disputes from the account holder's own use, not a relative's separate, fatal ride. A differently worded agreement, or a case decided outside Illinois, could come out differently, so read the specific wording in your agreement instead of assuming it covers a relative's separate use.
Does the Geller ruling apply to Lyft, DoorDash, or other apps outside Illinois?
The decision itself applies inside Illinois and interprets one company's specific contract language, so it does not automatically extend to other apps or other states. Other companies use different terms of use, and other states have their own wrongful death and survival laws along with their own approach to arbitration delegation clauses, so results can differ.
Did the Illinois Supreme Court find Uber's arbitration agreement to be unconscionable or unfair?
No, the court did not decide that question at all. It resolved the case on the narrower ground that Sheridan never agreed to arbitrate this particular dispute in the first place, so there was no need to reach whether the arbitration clause was procedurally or substantively unconscionable. That issue remains unresolved by this opinion.
This article is general legal information, not legal advice, and may not reflect the most current law or the law in your jurisdiction. Laws vary by state and change over time. For advice about your specific situation, consult a licensed attorney.
Knowing your rights is the first step
Join thousands committing to calmly and consistently exercise their constitutional rights.
