Case Law Update

Issue: Whether section 627.748(18), Florida Statutes, bars claims against a transportation network company for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation where a passenger alleges the company’s safety representations induced her to use the rideshare platform and she was subsequently assaulted by a driver.

A secondary issue addressed by the court was whether statutory immunity under section 627.748(18) may be resolved at the motion-to-dismiss stage or whether it constitutes an affirmative defense requiring factual development.

Overview: In Haddad v. Lyft Florida, Inc., the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal issued a significant opinion interpreting section 627.748(18), Florida Statutes, the Transportation Network Company (“TNC”) immunity provision applicable to rideshare companies such as Lyft and Uber. The court held that the statute broadly immunizes TNCs from claims arising out of injuries sustained during rides, including claims framed as direct negligence or negligent misrepresentation against the company itself, so long as the statutory exceptions are not adequately pled.

The decision materially impacts personal injury litigation involving rideshare assaults, negligent hiring allegations, safety misrepresentation claims, and other tort theories directed at TNCs.

Holding: The Fourth DCA affirmed dismissal with prejudice of the plaintiff’s negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation claims against Lyft. The court held:

• Section 627.748(18) provides extraordinarily broad immunity to transportation network companies;
• The statute applies not only to traditional vicarious liability claims but also to claims alleging Lyft’s own negligence;
• Claims “arising out of” the use or operation of a TNC vehicle fall within the immunity provision even when styled as negligent misrepresentation or direct corporate negligence;
• The statutory phrase “negligence under this section” refers only to negligence involving noncompliance with section 627.748 itself — not generalized negligence claims; and
• Because the immunity statute creates a default rule of nonliability, dismissal at the pleading stage is proper where the complaint fails to allege facts fitting within a statutory exception.

The court specifically observed that the statute “appears to sweep in practically any claim” against a rideshare company arising from injuries sustained during a ride, absent criminal wrongdoing or statutory noncompliance by the TNC.

Florida Statute § 627.748(18)

Florida Statute § 627.748(18) (2022) is the immunity provision within Florida’s Transportation Network Company (“TNC”) statute governing rideshare companies such as Uber and Lyft. The statute provides that a TNC is not deemed:

• a common carrier,
• a taxicab association,
• a for-hire vehicle service,
• or an employer of a TNC driver,

and further states that a TNC is generally not liable for the acts of a driver unless certain statutory exceptions apply.

The operative immunity language states that a TNC is not liable for damages suffered by a person “resulting from the use, operation, or possession of a motor vehicle” operated by a TNC driver while the driver is logged onto the digital network, except where:

• the TNC itself is negligent under the section; or
• the TNC has engaged in criminal wrongdoing.

Relevant Facts and Procedural History

Facts

Plaintiff Louise Haddad alleged she was assaulted by a Lyft driver during a ride on April 15, 2022. She claimed Lyft advertised numerous safety measures on its website, including:

• “High safety standards”;
• “Proactive safety measures”;
• Background checks;
• Annual re-screening;
• Criminal monitoring; and
• Safety training programs.

According to the complaint, Haddad reviewed and relied upon these representations when deciding to use Lyft’s platform. She alleged the representations were false or misleading and that Lyft’s misrepresentations caused her injuries. The complaint asserted negligence claims against the driver, and negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent misrepresentation claims against Lyft.

Procedural History

Lyft moved to dismiss under section 627.748(18), arguing the statute immunized it from liability for injuries arising from operation of a TNC vehicle while the driver was logged into the digital network.

The Broward County trial court granted dismissal, concluding the complaint failed to allege facts satisfying any statutory exception to immunity. Haddad appealed to the Fourth DCA, arguing:

• the statute only applied to vicarious liability claims;
• her claims alleged Lyft’s direct negligence;
• she sufficiently alleged “negligence under this section”; and
• immunity could not be decided on a motion to dismiss.

The Fourth DCA rejected each argument and affirmed dismissal with prejudice.

Practical Implications for Personal Injury Attorneys

Significant Expansion of TNC Immunity

The opinion substantially broadens the protection available to rideshare companies in Florida. Plaintiffs may no longer avoid statutory immunity simply by labeling claims as:

• negligent hiring;
• negligent retention;
• negligent supervision;
• negligent misrepresentation; or
• direct corporate negligence.

The court emphasized that the statutory text — not the “vicarious liability” title of the subsection — controls the analysis. As a result, courts are likely to focus on whether the injury “arises out of” operation of a TNC vehicle, not on the theory of liability pled.

Pleading Around Immunity Will Be Difficult

The court construed the statutory exception for “negligence under this section” narrowly. According to the Fourth DCA, plaintiffs must allege negligent violation of duties specifically imposed by section 627.748 itself. General negligence allegations are insufficient.

Accordingly, plaintiff attorneys should carefully investigate whether the TNC failed to comply with statutory requirements concerning:

• driver qualification procedures;
• insurance obligations;
• background check requirements; or
• statutory operational mandates under section 627.748.

Absent statutory noncompliance, dismissal at the pleading stage is likely.

Motion-to-Dismiss Practice Will Intensify

The court’s treatment of the immunity provision as a threshold “default rule of nonliability” is particularly important procedurally. Defense counsel will likely use Haddad aggressively to seek early dismissal before discovery.

Plaintiffs should anticipate:

• early motions to dismiss;
• strict scrutiny of pleading sufficiency; and
• arguments that immunity is jurisdictional or quasi-jurisdictional in nature.

This may substantially reduce plaintiffs’ ability to obtain discovery into rideshare company practices unless complaints specifically allege statutory violations.

Potential Legislative Response

The Fourth DCA openly acknowledged the breadth of the immunity statute and suggested the legislature may not have intended such expansive protection. Nonetheless, the court held that the plain language compelled its interpretation.

This language may invite future legislative amendments narrowing TNC immunity or creating express exceptions for:

• sexual assault claims;
• negligent hiring/supervision claims; or
• deceptive safety representations.

Until then, Haddad is likely to become a major defense authority in Florida rideshare litigation.

Conclusion

The Fourth DCA’s decision in Haddad v. Lyft Florida, Inc. represents one of the broadest interpretations to date of Florida’s rideshare immunity statute. The opinion signals that most tort claims against TNCs arising from injuries during rides will likely be barred unless plaintiffs can plead specific statutory noncompliance or criminal wrongdoing by the company itself. Personal injury attorneys handling rideshare assault and negligence cases must now evaluate claims through the lens of section 627.748(18) at the earliest stage of litigation.

This case law update is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship. The application of the authorities discussed depends on the specific facts of each case. Attorneys at Shiner Law Group are Members of The Florida Bar. This is attorney advertising.