Ridesharing platforms have revolutionized modern transportation, connecting riders and drivers instantaneously, through mobile apps. The popularity of these technology services is enormous and continues to grow. However, what happens when an accident occurs? Who bears responsibility?
The answer is: it’s complicated.
When an accident occurs involving an operator using a rideshare app, unique legal issues are often created for the rideshare platform, the drivers, riders and their insurers, and other involved vehicles--all of whom can be parties to litigation. Issues relating to the existence of coverage, the priority of coverage, and available policy limits often arise. Claims against rideshare platforms can involve allegations of both direct and vicarious liability. Brand protection and maintaining the confidentiality of trade secret and proprietary information is essential to the rideshare platform defendant.
The attorneys in Marshall Dennehey’s Rideshare Liability Practice are experienced at addressing the complex issues that emerge when claims arise. We are familiar with the prominent ridesharing apps and are knowledgeable of the data that is available from them. We work with a variety of liability and damages experts who specialize in issues applicable to sharing economy cases.
Our experienced team utilizes a process that allows for the prompt review of cases and strategizing with claims professionals about whether a case should be targeted for early resolution, aggressive discovery or trial. Our pre-suit services for catastrophic accidents include:
- Scene inspection, accident reconstruction, bio-mechanical accident reconstruction responding to preservation requests
- Assembling a top expert team to assist with investigations and preservation of evidence
- Vehicle inspections and data downloads
- Social media and background investigations of claimants
- Witness location and interviews, and all other facets of pre-suit accident investigation
Many states have enacted statutes governing requirements and liability for rideshare platforms, and issues involving statutory compliance may arise. Also, rideshare litigation is not limited to automobile negligence cases and uninsured/underinsured motorist claims. Rideshare platforms and their insurers must also be prepared to defend cases involving allegations of sexual assault or other intentional conduct.
We routinely handle cases for some of the nation’s largest ridesharing companies, their independent drivers and insurance carriers. We help navigate every step of the legal process, working closely with clients to execute strategies to protect their interests, manage risk and minimize exposure.
Results
Summary Judgment Obtained in New York Ridesharing Case
We won summary judgment for an online car sharing platform that connects vehicle owners (hosts) with travelers and locals (guests) seeking to book those vehicles for a fee in New York. The plaintiff alleged that he sustained serious injuries when he was involved in an automobile accident that collided with a vehicle listed on our client’s website. The Bronx County Supreme Court granted summary judgment in favor of our client, ruling that the defendant demonstrated that it is a peer-to-peer car sharing service; it does not provide rental services; it does not own, maintain or repair any of the vehicles on its platform; it is not responsible for the acts and omissions of the hosts or guests; and there is no agency relationship between defendant and the hosts or guests.
Successfully Defended a National Car-Sharing Company in a Multi-Party Suit
We successfully defended a national car-sharing company, resulting in a dismissal of all claims. The case involved a multi-party suit arising out of a commercial auto accident. Through aggressive pleading, we obtained a dismissal by arguing that both federal and state law provisions prohibited any claims against the car-sharing company.
Thought Leadership
Case Law Alerts
Florida Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal with Prejudice of a Claim Against Lyft Based on Statutory Immunity
July 20, 2026
Plaintiff, Louise Haddad, sued Lyft for damages after allegedly being assaulted by her Lyft driver. The plaintiff asserted claims for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation against Lyft based on statements from its website which led her to believe the ride would be safe. Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed dismissal of her claims with prejudice, finding that they were barred by the broad immunity conferred to Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) under § 631.918, Florida Statutes. To plead an exception to TNC immunity, the plaintiff would have to allege sufficient facts, such as a violation of antitrust laws, bad faith, malicious purpose, or wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety, or property. Since the plaintiff failed to adequately plead an exception, the court found her claims were barred by Florida’s TNC immunity statute. This case highlights the importance of legislative immunity in defending rideshare cases even at the pleadings stage.
Florida Appellate Court Affords Lyft Broad Immunity Under Section 627.748(18), Florida Statutes (2022), for the Actions of One of its Drivers
May 15, 2026
Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation claims against transportation network company (TNC), Lyft Florida, Inc., concluding such claims are barred by the plain text of section 627.748(18), Florida Statutes (2022). In Haddad v. Lyft Florida, Inc., 4D2025-017 (Fla. 4th DCA May 13, 2026), a rideshare passenger alleged she was assaulted by her Lyft driver. She sued for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, alleging statements on Lyft’s website led her to believe that her ride would be safe and that she would not suffer personal injuries at the hands of a Lyft driver. Lyft moved to dismiss, contending that section 627.748(18) provided it with immunity against such claims. Subsection 18 provides that “[a] TNC is not liable under general law by reason of owning, operating, or maintaining the digital network accessed by a TNC driver or rider…for harm to persons or property which results or arises out of the use, operation, or possession of a motor vehicle operating as a TNC vehicle while the driver is logged on to the digital network” under three circumstances if: (1) there is no negligence under this section or criminal wrongdoing under the federal or Florida criminal code on the part of the TNC; (2) the TNC has fulfilled all of its obligations under this section with respect to the TNC driver; and (3) the TNC is not the owner or bailee of the motor vehicle that caused harm to persons or property. The trial court agreed that subsection 18 provided Lyft with immunity and dismissed the complaint. With the benefit of oral argument, the Fourth District affirmed the dismissal. In doing so, the court concluded that subsection 18’s plain text makes clear that the immunity conferred under section 627.748(18) is much broader than traditional vicarious liability. Thus, the passenger’s claims for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentations, which arose out of the use, operation, or possession of the vehicle operating as a TNC vehicle while the driver was logged on to the network, were barred. It did not matter that the complaint purported to plead negligence by Lyft rather than a traditional vicarious liability theory. The negligent act asserted against the TNC had to relate to a negligent failure to meet the statute’s requirements for rideshare companies. This is a favorable decision for TNC 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. TNC companies should look to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaints from the outset. The immunity is not a traditional affirmative defense. Thus, trial courts can rule on the immunity at the motion to dismiss stage.
