.
Professional Liability

Defense Digest

Court Affirms Strong Liability Protections for Rideshare Companies Under Florida Law

Defense Digest, Vol. 32, No. 1, March 2026

March 1, 2026

by Sophia E. D. Philor

Key Points:

  • Florida law treats rideshare drivers as independent contractors when statutory conditions are met.
  • The law in effect on the date of the accident controls liability analysis. 
  • Isolated complaints and traffic citations are generally insufficient to prove negligent hiring. 

A Florida appellate court recently affirmed summary judgment in favor of Lyft, highlighting the liability protections available to rideshare companies under Florida’s Transportation Network Company statute. In Abner v. Lyft Florida, Inc., 422 So.3d 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025), the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, held that Lyft could not be held liable for injuries caused by one of its drivers, rejecting claims for both vicarious liability and negligent hiring and retention.

The case arose from an accident on July 5, 2017, where a Lyft driver collided with a motorcyclist, causing serious injuries. At the time, the driver was providing a prearranged ride through Lyft’s digital platform. The injured motorcyclist’s guardian sued both the driver and Lyft. While claims against the driver were settled, the claims against Lyft continued.

The plaintiff argued Lyft was responsible in two ways: the driver was acting as Lyft’s employee or agent at the time of the accident, and that it was negligent in hiring and retaining the driver. Lyft moved for summary judgment, relying on Florida’s Transportation Network Company statute, section 627.748, Florida Statutes (2017), which had taken effect just days before the crash.

The plaintiff argued the statute should not apply because the driver had been approved to drive for Lyft before it went into effect. The court rejected that argument, explaining that Florida law applies the statute in effect when the cause of action accrues. In negligence cases, that is the date of the accident. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Sheffield, 266 So. 3d 1230, 1233 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019). Since the accident occurred after the statute became effective, the statute governed the claims against Lyft.

Under section 627.748(9), a rideshare driver is considered an independent contractor, not an employee, if certain conditions are met. These conditions include allowing drivers to set their own hours, permitting work on competing rideshare platforms, not restricting other business or employment, and confirming independent contractor status in writing. Lyft presented evidence that these conditions were satisfied, including the driver agreement and testimony from its corporate representative.

The plaintiff argued that the driver did not qualify as an independent contractor because the agreement allegedly limited other work. The court disagreed, finding that the agreement only limited the driver’s activities while actively providing rides through the Lyft platform. Outside of those times, the driver remained free to pursue other employment or business activities. The agreement explicitly confirmed the driver’s discretion to work or not work. The court noted this is consistent with prior Florida cases recognizing rideshare drivers as independent contractors. McGillis v. Department of Economic Opportunity, 210 So. 3d 220, 225-226 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).

Since the driver qualified as an independent contractor, Lyft could not be held vicariously liable for the driver’s alleged negligence. Florida law generally holds that companies are not responsible for the negligent acts of independent contractors when they do not control how the work is performed. Stander v. Dispoz-O-Prods., Inc., 973 So. 2d 603, 604 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

The plaintiff also claimed Lyft was directly liable for negligent hiring and retention, citing a speeding citation, a reckless driving citation, and two negative passenger complaints. The court found this evidence insufficient. Under the statute, disqualification is triggered by certain criminal convictions, and not merely by citations. The driver’s reckless driving incident was only a citation, and a single moving violation did not meet the statutory threshold for disqualification. The passenger complaints were similarly inadequate: one was a vague two-star review with no explanation, and the other involved a single passenger reporting unsafe driving. Given the hundreds of rides the driver had safely completed, the court considered this evidence isolated and minimal.

The limited evidence led the court declining to broadly define negligent hiring claims against transportation network companies. Instead, it resolved the case narrowly, emphasizing judicial restraint. The court explained that if evidence is insufficient to survive a directed verdict at trial, it cannot survive summary judgment. CG Tides LLC v. SHEDDF3 VNB, LLC, 388 So. 3d 1081, 1084 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024); In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510, 317 So. 3d 72, 75 (Fla. 2021).

For insurance professionals, Abner v. Lyft Florida, Inc. reinforces the protections Florida law provides to transportation network companies. It highlights the importance of applying the law in effect on the date of loss, confirming independent contractor status, and assessing the sufficiency of evidence for negligent hiring claims. It also demonstrates how Florida’s summary judgment standard can resolve weak claims early, reducing exposure and defense costs. The appellate court ultimately affirmed summary judgment in Lyft’s favor.

Sophia works in our Fort Lauderdale, FL office. She can be reached at (954) 233-3026 or SEPhilor@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Reaffirms the Constitutionality of Act 111's IRE Provisions

In this case, the claimant sustained a work injury of January 6, 1994, which was acknowledged by Notice of Compensation Payable (NCP). After the claimant’s receipt of 104 weeks of temporary total disability benefits, the employer filed a Request for an Impairment Rating Examination (IRE). The IRE was performed in May 2023 and the IRE physician found that the claimant had a 5% whole person impairment, under the AMA Guides. The employer filed a Petition based on the IRE results, and the Petition was granted by the WCJ. During litigation, the claimant argued that the IRE provisions of Act 111 (Section 306(a.3) of the Act) were not applicable to her injury, since it predated June 24, 1996, the date Act 57 went into effect, and that the IRE provisions were unconstitutional. The Workers’ Compensation Judge (WCJ)) granted the Petition and the Board affirmed. On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the claimant argued that Act 111 violated the nondelegation doctrine and that its retroactive application to the claimant’s injury was unconstitutional. The court rejected the arguments on the basis that they had already found the same arguments without merit in multiple, prior cases. The court also addressed an argument made by the claimant that Act 111 was procedurally defective under the Pennsylvania Constitution because it was only considered on two days in each House after having undergone amendments and reassignments. The court noted that the Pennsylvania Constitution requires every bill to be considered on three different days in each House. The claimant maintained that, according to the legislative history, the bill did not receive three separate days of consideration from each House when it was assigned a new bill number. The court pointed out, however, that the bill number, H.B. 1840 remained constant and was considered on three occasions by the House. Further, the court concluded that minor amendments to the bill were germane to its original subject, which was to modify the Act’s IRE process, in accordance with Protz II.

Thought Leadership

Florida Supreme Court Rules Florida Statute §627.70152 Does not Apply Retroactively

In a decision that resolves years of appellate uncertainty and confirms that insurers and insureds alike can rely on the legal framework in place when a policy is issued, the Supreme Court of Florida last week found that Florida Statute §627.70152, which involves an insured’s requirement to provide an insurer with pre-suit notice before filing a suit, cannot be applied retroactively. In Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Hughes, the Court was presented with the issue of whether the statutory pre-suit notice requirement applied retroactively and whether it would apply to a breach of contract of an insurance policy that was issued before the statute went into effect. Before the Court was an appeal from a homeowner, Ms. Hughes, who sued her insurance carrier, Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company (Universal) for breach of contract under an insurance policy that was in effect from April 24, 2019 through April 24, 2020. During the policy period, Ms. Hughes suffered a loss and, on May 29, 2019, made a claim for water damage. The carrier investigated the loss and issued payment; Ms. Hughes disputed the payment, finding the amount insufficient for repairs. On July 1, 2021, Florida Statute §627.70152 went into effect, which required insureds to provide notice of intent to initiate litigation against the carrier prior to filing a lawsuit; if an insured filed the lawsuit without complying with §627.70152, a court must dismiss the case without prejudice. On August 4, 2021, Ms. Hughes filed her lawsuit against Universal for breach of contract. Universal moved to dismiss based on her failure to comply with §627.70152. Ms. Hughes contended the notice requirement could not be applied retroactively. The trial court disagreed and dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, and Ms. Hughes appealed. During the appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, in Cole v. Universal Property & Casualty, 363 So. 3d 1089 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023), ruled that Florida Statute §627.70152 did apply retroactively to policies issued before the effective date of §627.70152. However, the Sixth District Court agreed with Ms. Hughes and overturned the trial court’s ruling, finding the statute could not retroactively apply to policies issued prior to the statute effective date. Thereafter, the other district courts weighed in, with the Third District Court agreeing with the Fourth District Court, and the First, Second and Fifth District Courts agreeing with the Sixth District Court. In resolving the conflict amongst the district courts, the Supreme Court advised “as a general rule, ‘the statute in effect at the time an insurance contract is executed governs substantive issues arising in connection with that contract.’ Hassen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 674 So. 2d 106, 108 (Fla. 1996). The Court applied the two-step test when deciding whether a statute has retroactive application: “First, the Court must ascertain whether the Legislature intended for the statute to apply retroactively. Second, if such an intent is clearly expressed, the Court must determine whether retroactive application would violate any constitutional principles.” Menendez v. Progressive Exp. Ins. Co., 35 So. 3d 873, 877 (Fla. 2010). In analyzing the Legislature’s intent, the Court must determine whether the Legislature has manifested a clear command for retroactivity in the statutory text.  In review of the statutory text, the Court found nothing in the language of the statute to indicate that the phrase “all suits” was serving another purpose of expanding its reach to suits based on policies that both predate and postdate the enactment of the statute. Buis v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 394 So. 3d 738, 741 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024). Further, the Court noted the statute has an effective date, which has long been considered to be evidence against retroactive application of a statute. The Court concluded that, on its face, no provision of §627.70152 speaks to application of the statute to insurance policies issued before the statute’s effective date and therefore, the Legislature did not clearly command retroactivity of the statute to include insurance policies issued prior to the enactment of the statute. The Court briefly reviewed Universal’s argument that the presuit notice requirement was procedural, not substantive, and therefore should be applied retroactively; however, the Court agreed with the Sixth District Court’s finding that, in its entirety, §627.70152 transformed an insured’s ability to sue an insurance company under a property insurance policy and an insurer’s obligations to respond to and pay insurance claims, thus making the requirement a substantive change. The Court thereby upheld the decision of the Sixth District and disapproved the decision of the Fourth District in Cole.

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed. 

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Result

Complete Victory Obtained in a Workers’ Compensation Matter

Thought Leadership

The Tolling Trap: Filing Alone Will Not Toll the Statute Without Good-Faith Service

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently reinforced a critical limitation on bad faith claims, holding that a timely filing alone will not preserve a cause of action absent a good-faith effort to serve the original process. The plaintiff had presented a claim for underinsured motorist benefits to his auto insurer. The insurer evaluated the claim and determined that the plaintiff’s accident-related damages did not exceed the bodily injury liability insurance limits of the at-fault driver and denied his claim. Among other claims, the plaintiff sought to present a claim for insurance bad faith under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8371, to which a two year statute of limitation applies. He first filed a praecipe for writ of summons before the expiration of the statute of limitation. However, the plaintiff did not attempt to serve the praecipe or writ until after the statute of limitations had expired. Additionally, the service failed as the plaintiff had mailed the original process to an incorrect address. Despite receipt of the Postal Service’s failure to deliver the original process, the plaintiff did not attempt to re-serve the writ. Two months later, the plaintiff filed a complaint and then successfully served that complaint. The insurer sought to dismiss the plaintiff’s bad faith claim as time-barred by the statute of limitations. The district court agreed. Though the plaintiff had filed a praecipe for a writ of summons prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, the statute is only tolled if there is a good faith effort to serve that original process. In this case, the court determined that the plaintiff had failed to perform a “good faith effort to serve the original process”. Additionally, though the filing and service of a complaint can serve as alternative original process when the lawsuit is commenced by the filing of a praecipe for a writ of summons, the plaintiff filed his complaint after the statute of limitations had expired. The plaintiff’s bad faith claim was therefore determined to be barred by the statute of limitations and dismissed by the court, with prejudice. A key takeaway for the defense is not to assume that the statute of limitations has been successfully tolled by a plaintiff merely because a praecipe for a writ of summons or complaint has been filed prior to the expiration of the statute. A filed complaint or writ is only part of the equation. The defense should carefully review the docket and filings to confirm that the plaintiff also performed the requisite good faith effort to serve that original process. A thorough review of the docket may reveal that the plaintiff failed to make the good-faith service efforts necessary to toll the statute of limitations.

business meeting photo

Result

Summary Judgment Obtained in Insurance Coverage Case

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case

Result

Defense Victory Obtained in Workers’ Compensation Case