ode-to-uberUber is trying to secure a last minute injunction in Ohio to prevent the public learning the extent of its insurance coverage.

According to Courthouse News, a local ABC affiliate in Columbus, OH, has used an open records request to require the city to share insurance documents that Uber included in its application for a license to operate there. Uber claims that the documents include “trade secret information” and so is suing the city to prevent their release.

“Releasing this insurance policy without the narrow, targeted redactions that Uber seeks would publicly disclose Uber’s trade secret information and cause Uber significant, irreparable competitive harm,” the company claims.

In recent months, Uber has done everything it can to avoid public scrutiny of its insurance policies. Back in March, Pando reported that the company had finally agreed to increase its insurance coverage after it claimed not to be liable for accidents involving drivers who are on duty but don’t actually have a passenger in their car. A few months earlier, an on duty Uber vehicle had hit and killed a six year old girl. The company immediately insisted it was not liable for the child’s death.

More recently, Uber sent an email to riders in California, asking them to help fight against Assembly Bill 2293 which had passed a 7-0 vote in the state Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee and a 71-0 vote in the California State Assembly. The bill would ensure that ridesharing drivers are fully insured whenever they’re logged on to a ridesharing platform, even if they don’t have a passenger in their car.

As I wrote at the time, not once in Uber’s email did it mention that the bill had anything to do with insurance. Instead they simply said that the bill “would kill ridesharing in the Golden State.”

The Ohio insurance documents will be released today, unless Uber is successful in its last minute injunction.