The Rideshare accident lawyer in Miami, Jonathan Perazzo, has learned that Florida law is making it hard to sue Uber or Lyft directly over a driver’s conduct during a ride. Under Fla. Stat. §627.748(18), rideshare companies carry broad immunity connected to their digital network and driver relationships — even when a claim is framed as the company’s own wrongdoing, not the driver’s. A Florida appellate court has confirmed how far that immunity reaches. You can still sue the driver personally, and the rideshare company’s required insurance coverage stays in place regardless of the immunity.
What Happened in Haddad v. Lyft
On May 13, 2026, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal unanimously affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Louise Haddad against Lyft Florida, Inc. The case, Haddad v. Lyft Florida, Inc., No. 4D2025-0117, was decided by Judge Lott, joined by Judges Klingensmith and Shaw, on appeal from the 17th Judicial Circuit in Broward County. The Perazzo Law Firm was not involved in this case; we are covering it because it interprets a statute that governs every rideshare trip taken in Florida, including in Miami.
According to Haddad’s complaint, as summarized in the appellate opinion, she alleges her Lyft driver assaulted her during an April 15, 2022 ride — an allegation the court accepted only for purposes of deciding the motion to dismiss, not a finding of fact. Rather than suing the driver, Haddad sued Lyft itself for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation. She alleged Lyft’s website advertised “high safety standards,” driver background checks, annual re-screening, and continuous criminal monitoring, and that she chose Lyft because of those representations. Lyft moved to dismiss, arguing the rideshare-immunity statute barred the claims outright. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case with prejudice. The Fourth District affirmed.
Florida’s Rideshare Immunity Statute
The case turns on Fla. Stat. §627.748(18), which governs “transportation network companies” (TNCs) — the legal term for Uber, Lyft, and similar platforms. A TNC is not liable for harm arising from a TNC vehicle while the driver is logged into the app if three conditions are met: no negligence under the statute or criminal wrongdoing by the TNC, the TNC has met its statutory obligations toward the driver, and the TNC does not own or lease the vehicle involved.
A separate part of the same statute, subsection (7), sets Florida’s minimum rideshare insurance requirements: at least $1 million in coverage while a ride is in progress, and $50,000/$100,000/$25,000 coverage while a driver is logged in but not yet matched to a rider. The statute is explicit that immunity under subsection (18) does not reduce those insurance requirements.
Why the Court Sided With Lyft
Haddad argued her claims were about Lyft’s own conduct — the marketing statements on its website — not vicarious liability for the driver’s alleged assault. The Fourth District rejected that framing. Although the statute’s heading says “vicarious liability,” the court held the operative text sweeps more broadly: immunity applies to any claim brought “by reason of” a TNC owning, operating, or maintaining its digital network, or being affiliated with the driver, for harm arising while the driver is logged on. Haddad’s misrepresentation claims fell within that language.
The opinion also narrowed the statute’s “negligence” exception to mean a TNC’s failure to satisfy the specific duties Section 627.748 itself imposes — such as its background-check and screening requirements — not general negligence loosely connected to running a rideshare platform. Haddad’s complaint alleged general misrepresentation, not a failure of a specific statutory duty, so it did not qualify. The court also treated the immunity as a default rule, not an affirmative defense proven later, meaning a complaint must plead facts fitting an exception just to survive a motion to dismiss — why Haddad’s case ended before discovery.
What the Immunity Does Not Cover
The ruling does not eliminate every path to recovery after a rideshare incident. Two protections survive untouched:
- The driver’s personal liability. Subsection (18)(b) makes clear the TNC immunity does not reduce “the liability of any person other than” the TNC. A driver who caused harm can still be sued directly.
- Required insurance coverage. The same subsection preserves the coverage limits set in subsection (7), regardless of whether the TNC itself is immune from a given claim.
What compensation looks like in any individual case depends entirely on the facts, the available coverage, and who is a proper defendant. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome in a future case.
What This Means If You’re Hurt in an Uber or Lyft Crash
Haddad shows the immunity statute can reach claims framed as a company’s own misrepresentation, not only claims against a TNC for a driver’s conduct. Before assuming you have a direct claim against Uber or Lyft, identify the proper defendant: the driver, an at-fault third-party motorist, or, in narrow circumstances, the TNC itself for failing its own statutory duties. A related breakdown of who pays after a Florida Uber or Lyft crash covers how the statutory insurance tiers apply based on the driver’s app status at the time of the incident.
Is This Ruling Final?
Not yet, formally. The opinion states on its final page that it is “not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.” This post reflects the opinion as issued on May 13, 2026, and will need to be revisited if a rehearing changes the outcome.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does this ruling mean I can never sue Uber or Lyft in Florida?
No. The immunity in Fla. Stat. §627.748(18) is broad but not absolute. A claim can survive if it fits one of the statute’s three exceptions — for example, if the TNC failed a specific screening or background-check duty the statute itself imposes, or owned or leased the vehicle involved.
Can I still sue the Uber or Lyft driver personally?
Yes. Subsection (18)(b) expressly preserves the driver’s own personal liability; the TNC’s immunity does not extend to the driver.
What if the rideshare company skipped a background check it was supposed to run?
According to the Fourth District’s reasoning, a failure to meet the statute’s own screening or re-screening obligations could fall within the “negligence under this section” exception. A general allegation that the company should have known better is not enough.
Does this affect Uber, or only Lyft?
The same statute, Fla. Stat. §627.748, governs every transportation network company in Florida. Uber was not a party to the Haddad case, but the immunity provision applies identically to an Uber accident claim as it does to a Lyft one.
Talk to a Florida Rideshare Accident Attorney
Rideshare injury claims in Florida now turn on a statute with a narrow set of exceptions. If you were hurt during an Uber or Lyft ride, The Perazzo Law Firm can review what happened and explain your options. Call (888) 737-2996 or visit our contact page for a free case evaluation.
Miami Uber Accident Attorney advertising. This blog post is for general informational purposes only, is not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Perazzo Law Firm’s bona fide office is located in North Miami Beach, Florida. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome in any future case.