Tom is a member of the Casualty Department and serves as the Managing Attorney of the Orlando office. He devotes his practice to civil litigation defense, advocating for corporations in claims of premises liability, wrongful death and product liability. He has handled hundreds of cases on behalf of a variety of corporations, many involving catastrophic injuries. During his career, he also has handled cases involving employment law, labor law, negligent security, trucking and transportation, motor vehicle accidents, sexual abuse and workers’ compensation. He also has experience handling cases involving allegations of mold resulting in personal injury and/or property damage. As part of his amusement and entertainment practice, Tom represents venues including theme parks, golf courses, water parks and retail stores. Tom is an active member of the International Amusement and Leisure Defense Association (IALDA).
Tom co-chairs the firms Rideshare Liability practice where he represents some of the nation’s leading ridesharing companies, their independent drivers and insurance carriers. In this capacity, he assists in managing the unique legal issues that often arise with rideshare claims, including insurance coverage, direct and vicarious liability and statutory compliance challenges.
Tom began his career at a civil litigation firm in Miami where he worked with one of the presidents of the Florida Bar. In 2006, he moved to Orlando where he joined a statewide defense litigation firm. Tom continues to dedicate his practice to defending corporations in civil litigation here at Marshall Dennehey.
Tom obtained his undergraduate degree from Rollins College where he made Dean’s List and President’s List. In 2001, he graduated cum laude from the University of Miami School of Law. As a law student, he made Dean’s List and earned the Dean’s Certificate of Achievement as well as the CALI Excellence for the Future Award.
Tom is a member of the Florida Bar and is admitted to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Results
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.
Case Law Alerts
Florida Court Affirms Dismissal of Claims Against Lyft, Clarifying TNC Immunity at the Pleading Stage
April 1, 2026
Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court order dismissing a lawsuit against Lyft, arising from a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff asserted claims of negligence and vicarious liability against Lyft. The trial court dismissed those claims, and the appellate court entered a per curiam affirmance, citing Florida’s TNC Statute and pleading rule. On appeal, the major point of contention was whether Lyft had to put forth evidence to support its argument for immunity under the TNC statute. Lyft argued no evidence was required, because the trial court concluded they could not be held liable based on the facts alleged in the complaint. While the Third District did not write an opinion, it presumably accepted Lyft’s position. This case suggests that a motion to dismiss can be an appropriate vehicle for rideshare companies to have trial courts determine applicability of TNC immunity.
