lyft - Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. // Understanding Haddad v. Lyft Florida, Inc.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. — Mon, 17 Aug 2026 21:39:28 GMT

In May 2026, the Fourth District Court of Appeal issued a consequential opinion in Haddad v. Lyft Florida, Inc., fundamentally reshaping the scope of tort claims that may be brought against transportation network companies in Florida. Haddad effectively wiped out the entire suite of common‑law causes of action traditionally asserted against rideshare companies, unless the plaintiff can anchor the duty to a specific statutory requirement in § 627.748, Florida Statutes.

Common‑Law Causes of Action Eliminated by Haddad v. Lyft Florida, Inc.

(Unless tied to a statutory violation)**

1. Negligent Hiring

Any claim that Lyft/Uber owed a common‑law duty to hire safe drivers is barred.

Example:

“Lyft negligently hired a driver with a history of reckless driving.”

Why eliminated: The statute defines the duty (background check). Common‑law hiring duties are preempted.

2. Negligent Retention

Claims that Lyft should have removed a dangerous driver based on complaints or prior incidents are barred.

Example:

“Lyft negligently retained a driver despite multiple passenger complaints.”

Why eliminated: Only statutory disqualification duties survive.

3. Negligent Supervision

General allegations that Lyft failed to supervise or monitor drivers are barred.

Example:

“Lyft negligently supervised its drivers and failed to ensure safe operation.”

Why eliminated: The statute does not impose a supervision duty; common‑law supervision is preempted.

4. Negligent Training

Claims that Lyft should have trained drivers better (safe driving, passenger handling, emergency procedures) are barred.

Example:

“Lyft negligently failed to train its drivers on passenger safety.”

Why eliminated: The statute imposes no training duty; common‑law training duties are preempted.

5. Negligent Failure to Protect Passengers

Claims that Lyft owed a common‑law duty to protect passengers from foreseeable harm (driver assault, reckless driving, unsafe conditions) are barred.

Example:

“Lyft negligently failed to protect the passenger from the driver’s violent behavior.”

Why eliminated: Only statutory background‑check and zero‑tolerance duties survive.

6. Negligent Failure to Warn

Claims that Lyft should have warned passengers about risks associated with rideshare use are barred.

Example:

“Lyft negligently failed to warn passengers that drivers may have criminal histories.”

7. Negligent Safety Representations

Claims that Lyft negligently represented its rides as “safe,” “secure,” or “professionally vetted” are barred.

Example:

“Lyft negligently advertised that its rides were safe.”

Why eliminated: Haddad held that misrepresentation claims arising from the ride fall within statutory immunity.

8. Negligent Operation of a Transportation Service

Claims that Lyft negligently operated its rideshare platform or transportation network are barred.

Example:

“Lyft negligently operated its service by allowing unsafe vehicles on the road.”

9. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED)

NIED claims arising from the ride are barred unless tied to statutory violations.

Example:

“Lyft negligently caused emotional distress by allowing an unsafe driver to transport the plaintiff.”

10. Negligent Failure to Implement Additional Safety Measures

Claims that Lyft should have done “more” than the statute requires — enhanced background checks, in‑car cameras, stricter monitoring — are barred.

Example:

“Lyft negligently failed to install in‑vehicle cameras to protect passengers.”

Why eliminated: Haddad expressly rejected negligence theories based on duties beyond the statute.

11. Negligent Misrepresentation & Fraudulent Misrepresentation

Claims based on Lyft’s marketing, app statements, or website assurances are barred.

Example:

“Lyft negligently misrepresented that its drivers were thoroughly vetted.”

12. Vicarious Liability for Driver Negligence or Misconduct

Common‑law vicarious liability theories are barred unless the TNC owned or was bailee of the vehicle.

Example:

“Lyft is vicariously liable for the driver’s negligent operation of the vehicle.”

The Haddad Court framed the facts of the case as follows:

“Louise Haddad claims she was assaulted by her Lyft driver. She sued Lyft for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, alleging that statements on its website led her to believe that the ride would be safe, thus leading to the personal injuries she suffered at the hands of the driver.”

Lyft argued that section 627.748(18), Florida Statutes (2022) (“Subsection 18”), provided it with immunity against her claims. The trial court agreed and dismissed the complaint.

Section 627.748(18), Florida Statutes (2022), provides:

Vicarious liability.—

(a) 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, or by being the TNC affiliated with a TNC driver, 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 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.

(b) This subsection does not alter or reduce the coverage or policy limits of the insurance requirements under subsection (7) or the liability of any person other than the vicarious liability of a TNC as described in paragraph (a).

Florida Statute § 627.748 governs Transportation Network Companies—such as Uber and Lyft—and establishes the regulatory framework applicable to their operations in Florida.

Section 627.748(12) delineates the exclusive statutory duties imposed on transportation network companies. These are the specific obligations incorporated by reference in Section 627.748(18)(a)2. A rideshare company may be held liable for negligence only if it breaches one or more of these enumerated duties and that statutory breach proximately causes the claimant’s harm. In other words, liability now arises solely from statutory‑based negligence, not from any general‑law tort theory.

Although Florida law classifies rideshare drivers as independent contractors rather than employees of transportation network companies, § 627.748(12) nevertheless imposes a suite of mandatory safety, screening, and operational duties on TNCs that closely resemble the oversight obligations traditionally associated with employers. In effect, the Legislature has required TNCs to conduct background checks, verify driver eligibility, maintain specified insurance, and enforce safety‑related policies even in the absence of an employer‑employee relationship.

This statutory structure parallels § 768.096, which affords employers a rebuttable presumption against negligent hiring when they perform the background investigation prescribed by that statute. Although § 627.748(12) establishes a distinct, TNC‑specific set of screening and safety requirements, both provisions reflect a common legislative judgment: compliance with defined background‑check and vetting duties serves as a liability shield, while noncompliance exposes the entity to negligence claims grounded in statutory breach.

Neither Haddad nor § 627.748(18) disturb the mandatory insurance protections in § 627.748(7), which continue to provide coverage for injuries caused by a rideshare driver’s negligent operation of the vehicle while logged on to the digital network. These insurance obligations remain fully intact, even though tort claims against the TNC itself are largely barred.

*************************************************

Contact us today at (305) 758-4900 or by email for a free consultation to learn your legal rights. If we accept your case, we will represent you on a contingency fee basis — meaning you pay no upfront costs. Our fee is collected only if we obtain a favorable recovery on your behalf. If there is no recovery, you owe nothing.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. is a South Florida based law firm committed to the judicial system and to representing and obtaining justice for individuals – the poor, the injured, the forgotten, the voiceless, the defenseless and the damned, and to protecting the rights of such people from corporate and government oppression. We do not represent government, corporations or large business interests.

While prompt resolution of your legal matter is our goal, our approach is fundamentally different. Our clients are “people” and not “cases” or “files.” We take the time to build a relationship with our clients, realizing that only through meaningful interaction can we best serve their needs. In this manner, we have been able to best help those requiring legal representation.

DISCLAIMER: This information provided by Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. is for informational purposes only and is intended to be used as a non-legal guide prior to consultation with an attorney familiar with your specific legal situation. It should not be considered legal advice or counseling. No such legal advice or counseling is either expressly or impliedly intended. This information is not a substitute for the advice or counsel of an attorney. If you require legal advice, you should seek the services of an attorney.

Our firm is always grateful for the many cases we receive through referrals from fellow attorneys, and we routinely pay referral fees to our referring counsel in accordance with applicable ethical rules.

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. /// Uber Drivers and Passengers, Beware!

Jeffrey P. Gale, P.A. — Wed, 30 Apr 2025 17:22:19 GMT

Much has been written about the type of insurance coverage available to Uber passengers and other third parties for accidents caused by Uber drivers. Less has been written about the coverage available to Uber drivers and their passengers for injuries caused by third parties such as other drivers.

Currently, we are handling a case for an Uber driver who was hurt through the negligence of another driver. Our client’s passenger was also hurt.

Florida motor vehicle insurance policies offer a variety of coverages. For individuals, only Property Damage Liability and PIP are mandatory. The other available coverages are Uninsured Motorist/Underinsured Motorist (UM/UIM), Comprehensive, Collision, and Medical Payments. A premium is charged for each type of coverage.

Uber maintains insurance coverage in Florida with Progressive. We received a copy of the policy applicable to our accident. The available coverages are:

Liability to Others – Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability – $1,000,000 combined single limit
Comprehensive – $2,500
Collision – $2,500
Medical Payments – $5,000 each person

Uber rejected UM/UIM. PIP was not an option.

Uninsured Motorist insurance is coverage for when the at-fault party does not maintain Bodily Injury Liability insurance coverage. Underinsured Motorist applies when the Bodily Injury Liability coverage limits are insufficient to fully compensate for all damages.

Florida Statute 627.748(7) outlines the insurance requirements for transportation companies like Uber and Lyft — referred to in the statute as “Transportation Network Companies” and “TNC” — and their drivers. The statute provides that “Uninsured and underinsured vehicle coverage as required by s. 627.727” must be maintained while a participating TNC driver is logged on to the digital network but is not engaged in a prearranged ride or while a TNC driver is engaged in a prearranged ride. Subsection (7)(d) further provides:

If the TNC driver’s insurance under paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) has lapsed or does not provide the required coverage, the insurance maintained by the TNC must provide the coverage required under this subsection, beginning with the first dollar of a claim, and have the duty to defend such claim.

The statutory language gives the appearance that UM/UIM would always be available, when applicable, through the TNC or its driver. Appearances can be deceiving! In Progressive Express Insurance Company v. Raiser-DC, LLC, 724 F.Supp. 1273 (USDC, S.D. Florida 2024), summary judgment was entered in favor of Progressive’s position that UM and UIM coverage did not exist under the TNC’s insurance policy. This left its driver [Karina Monasterio], who was seriously injured by the negligence of another driver, who was underinsured at the time of the accident, without UIM insurance. Here are key parts of the ruling:

In pertinent part, the Florida UM/UIM statute requires that:

(1) No motor vehicle liability insurance policy which provides bodily injury liability coverage shall be delivered or issued for delivery in this state with respect to any specifically insured or identified motor vehicle registered or principally garaged in this state unless uninsured motor vehicle coverage is provided therein … However, the coverage required under this section is not applicable when, or to the extent mat, an insured named in the policy makes a written rejection of the coverage on behalf of all insureds under the policy.”

Fla Stat. 627.727(1) (emphasis added). Florida courts have already interpreted that Subsection (1) of the Florida UM/UIM Statute “limits the applicability of the uninsured motorist requirements to liability policies covering specifically insured or identified motor vehicles.” Hooper v. Zurich Ins. Co., 789 So. 2d 368, 369 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001).

The Parties state, and Ms. Monasterio readily concedes, that the Period Policy “is not issued for specifically insured or identified vehicles.” The Period Policy does not identify any specific vehicle nor is Ms. Monasterio’s vehicle specifically identified. As Subsection (1) is therefore not applicable to the Period Policy, Ms. Monasterio cannot point to any text in the Florida UM/UIM Statute that would require coverage for her vehicle during the May 6, 2022, incident. Her argument that Subsection (1) of the Florida UM/UIM Statute is the only subsection to limit its applicability to specifically insured or identified motor vehicles, does undermine the limitation nor in and of itself create language that mandates UM/UIM insurance for all other types of insurance policies.

However, Ms. Monasterio urges this Court to recognize the result that follows. Subsection (1) of the Florida UM/UIM Statute only requires UM/UIM coverage for “specifically insured or identified vehicles.” The Period Policy was written to cover “any auto while being used by a TNC driver, but only while engaged in providing a prearranged service utilizing the ride-share application …” It is likely that most TNC policies will be written similarly and it would be virtually impossible for any TNC to possibly identify each vehicle in the written policy. Therefore, it is further likely that no TNC driver or vehicle would ever be specifically insured or identified by the TNC’s insurance policy, and as a result, never meet the condition precedent for Subsection (1) of the Florida UM/UIM Statute. By referencing, the Florida UM/UIM Statute, the TNC Act makes the requirement for UM/UIM coverage meaningless for TNC insurance policies.

The court acknowledged “that this interpretation might be counter to the Florida Legislature’s intent when they drafted the TNC Act.” However, it relied on basic statutory interpretaton to reach the final result:

Notwithstanding the legislative intent however, my inquiry must focus on the language of the statute in its final form, and the statute references the Florida UM/UIM Statute in its entirety. The TNC Act only mandates UM/UIM insurance as required by the Florida UM/UIM Statute and Subsection (1) of the UM/UIM only requires that policies that specifically insure vehicles provide such coverage. I believe this is the result that the final text of the TNC Act requires. Belanger v. Salvation Army, 556 F.3d 1153, 1155 (11th Cir. 2009) (“When the statute is clear and unambiguous, courts will not look behind the statute’s plain language for legislative intent or resort to rules of statutory construction to ascertain intent.”).

In our case, because Uber’s driver, our client, did not cause the crash, the Bodily Injury Liability coverage in Uber’s Progressive policy does not come into play for our client or his passenger. The only injury-related coverage in Uber’s policy for our crash is the Medical Payments coverage. This coverage does not compensate for non-economic damages such as pain and suffering. Thankfully, the at-fault driver maintained enough bodily injury liability insurance to compensate for our client’s non-economic damages. Had our client’s injuries been more serious, that would not be the case. We do not know the full extent of the passenger’s injuries or what other insurance coverage he may have to know whether he will be fully compensated.

Bottom line: to protect against uninsured and underinsured situations, TNC drivers must maintain their own UM and UIM insurance. The TNC will not provide the coverage for them. The same goes for passengers. If the driver has UM/UIM and the passenger does not have other insurance considered primary for the same measure of damages, the driver’s UM/UIM should provide coverage.

**************************************

Contact us at 305-758-4900 or by email (kgale@jeffgalelaw.com and jgale@jeffgalelaw.com) to learn your legal rights.