A Florida appeals court this month handed ridesharing companies like Uber and Lyft a major legal victory with a broad interpretation of what the court called an unusually broad liability immunity law.
The 4th District Court of Appeals, one step shy of the state Supreme Court, found that Lyft Florida Inc. was not liable for the alleged assault by one of its drivers on a passenger, under House Bill 1352, which was signed into law in 2020.
It was the first scrutiny of the 2020 statute by an appellate court.
“The scope of immunity provided by Subsection 18’s plain text is very broad. It appears to sweep in practically any claim against Lyft (or a similar rideshare network operator) for injury suffered during a ride…” the appellate court judges said in the May 13 opinion, upholding a Broward County Circuit Court judge.
“Whether the legislators who voted on the text of the statute actually intended to confer such broad immunity is immaterial. Whether it is wise to confer such broad immunity is not a question for this branch to answer,” Judge Jonathan Lott wrote for the appeals court.
The 2022 Florida law, sponsored in part by then-state Sen. Jeff Brandes, R-St. Petersburg, grants lawsuit immunity regardless of how Lyft may have contributed to the injury—so long as Lyft otherwise complies with the requirements of the rideshare statute. Those requirements include background checks on drivers and a policy barring drivers that have been convicted of crimes.
Brandes, who left the Senate in 2022, could not immediately be reached for comment over the Memorial Day weekend. A legislative analysis of HB 1352 did not address the broad immunity clause.
The Florida law came about after a legislative push by Uber and Lyft in the early 2020s to limit their liability, expand the gig economy, and stem some legal obligations to workers. The rideshare giant won laws in several states that deemed drivers to be independent contractors, not covered by states’ workers’ compensation laws and other employment laws. The Florida immunity law specifies that it does not apply to taxi services or motor carriers, and it bars local governments from making their own regulations, taxes or business license requirements for rideshare drivers.
The May 13 Florida appeals court decision is the latest in a mixed bag of recent court rulings that have examined the ride firms’ liability for drivers’ actions. In Arizona, a federal jury in April awarded $8.5 million to a woman who said she was sexually assaulted by an Uber driver. But a North Carolina federal jury two weeks later awarded just $5,000 in a similar lawsuit.
Still, more than 500 similar cases are pending in California state court and in other states. The Florida appellate court noted that the Florida immunity statute is similar to the federal law known as the Graves Amendment, which provides some immunity to transportation network companies. But the 2022 amendment to the Florida law appears to push the immunity cloak a little further, beyond vicarious liability.
The 4th District Court ruling may have created a “liability vacuum” for rideshare firms and reopens the question of how much responsibility corporations should bear, even when workers are not considered employees, Palm Beach attorney Sean Domnick wrote in Law.com last week.
Others called it a potentially significant win for rideshare companies.
“Plaintiffs will need to carefully tailor their allegations to overcome the broad immunity set forth in the statute. Otherwise, their claims will be subject to dismissal out of the gate,” attorneys Kimberly Berman and Idan Livnat wrote in a Marshall Dennehey law firm blog post.
The alleged incident that triggered the litigation came in April 2022. Louise Haddad said a Lyft driver assaulted her, causing severe and permanent injuries. She sued Lyft, arguing that the company was negligent and had misrepresented itself: She had relied on Lyft’s advertisements stating that the firm follows high safety standards and screens its drivers.
Haddad’s attorneys, including John Mills and Jonathan Martin, of Jacksonville, argued that the Florida rideshare immunity statute does not apply to her claims because the statute bars only vicarious liability. Haddad was charging direct negligence by Lyft. (She filed a separate claim against the driver.)
The 4th DCA judges noted that the immunity section of the Florida law is, in fact, titled “Vicarious Liability.” But the title of a section should not override the plain words of the text of the statute, the court said, quoting from the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. And anyway, Lyft was not negligent under the terms of the statute because the company had followed the rules, screened its drivers, and had not engaged in unlawful behavior, the court pointed out.
The Florida statute language “is far broader than traditional vicarious liability, and applies to cases in which Lyft’s network affiliation with the driver is a but-for causal element of Lyft’s alleged liability,” the court said.
If the section’s operative conditions are satisfied, then in order to overcome the immunity in a suit against a TNC (transportation network company), “plaintiffs must allege facts to satisfy an exception … to the general ‘no liability’ rule,” the appellate judges concluded. “Haddad failed to do so here, even when given the explicit opportunity by the trial court.”
Lyft’s liability insurance carriers were not named in the lawsuit or court ruling. The 2022 law notes that the immunity clause does not reduce the policy limits of insurance requirements for ride companies and drivers: $50,000 for death and bodily injury per person; $100,000 per incident; and $25,000 for property damage; as well as personal injury protection and uninsured motorist coverage.
Lyft’s brief to the appeals court can be seen here.
