Rideshare services are part of daily life for many Floridians. Maybe you’re ready to head to Miami Beach to party and don’t want to drive home drunk (smart choice!), or you’re an Orlando commuter or Jacksonville resident who needs a ride to the airport, or there are any other variety of scenarios. Regardless of your reason, millions of people in Florida rely on Uber and Lyft every week to get where they need to go.
However, would you know what to do if you’re involved in a Florida rideshare accident? This type of accident—and who pays for damages—is more complicated than a typical car crash.
Rideshare-related accidents have been steadily increasing in Florida’s metropolitan areas. Some counties report annual growth of about three percent. But for an accident victim, the real challenge isn’t just recovering from your injuries—it’s navigating a layered insurance system that’s specifically designed to limit the liability of the rideshare companies, themselves.
The Florida TNC statute
Florida Transportation Network Companies, or TNCs, are subject to a 2017 law that established a comprehensive regulatory framework for their services. TNCs are the legal term for companies like Uber and Lyft.
House Bill 221, which became law as Florida Statute § 627.748, sets forth several conditions related to TNCs:
- Setting forth minimum insurance requirements;
- Defining when TNC coverage applies; and
- Establishing that rideshare drivers are independent contractors, rather than employees, when certain conditions are met.
The statute was intended to bring regulatory clarity to an industry that was, at the time, operating in a legal gray area. But for accident victims, this statute can make the law feel more like a maze than a map, thanks to the “three phases” of rideshare insurance coverage.
Three phases of Florida rideshare coverage
In a traditional car accident, liability insurance can be relatively straightforward. By contrast, a rideshare accident triggers different levels of coverage, depending on how the driver was engaging with the app at the moment of the crash. Florida law divides a rideshare driver’s activity into three distinct periods, and the insurance available changes dramatically from one phase to the next.
In other words, coverage shifts depending on the app’s status at the time of the crash.
Phase One: App is on, driver is waiting for a request
When a driver has logged into the Uber or Lyft app and is available to accept rides, but they haven’t yet been matched with a passenger, the TNC’s insurance provides only limited, contingent coverage. Under § 627.748, the minimums during this phase are:
- $50,000 per person for bodily injury
- $100,000 per accident for bodily injury
- $25,000 for property damage
These amounts only apply if the driver’s personal auto policy does not cover the loss. Often, it doesn’t, because most personal policies exclude commercial driving activity.
Phase Two: En route to pick up a passenger
Once the driver accepts a ride request and begins traveling toward the passenger’s pickup location, the coverage increases. Both Uber and Lyft are required to maintain $1 million in combined liability coverage for bodily injury, death, and property damage, along with personal injury protection (PIP) coverage and uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) protection.
Phase Three: Passenger in the vehicle
The highest coverage applies from the moment the passenger enters the vehicle until the ride ends. The same $1 million liability policy applies, along with PIP and UM/UIM coverage.
App off: No TNC coverage
When the rideshare app is turned off entirely, the driver is considered a private motorist. Only their personal auto insurance applies, and the TNC bears no insurance obligation whatsoever.
The practical consequence of this system is that the outcome of a rideshare injury claim can entirely hinge on a few seconds of app data. A driver who causes a crash while waiting for a ride request triggers far less coverage than one who has already accepted a request. If you’re a victim with a catastrophic injury, like a traumatic brain injury, spinal cord damage, or a diagnosis that has long-term rehabilitation needs, the difference between $100,000 in phase one and $1 million in phase two coverage is tremendous. It can mean the difference between adequate compensation and financial ruin.
The independent contractor shield
An injured passenger in a rideshare accident might naturally look to pursue a claim against Uber or Lyft if the insurance available under the three-phase system is insufficient. Under traditional employment law, the doctrine of respondeat superior holds employers liable for the negligent actions or inactions of their employees committed within the scope of their employment.
But the Florida TNC statute effectively removes this option. Section 627.748(9) classifies TNC drivers as independent contractors, not employees. This is the case if the situation meets these four conditions:
- The TNC doesn’t prescribe specific working hours;
- The driver is free to use competing platforms;
- The TNC doesn’t prohibit the driver from having other jobs; and
- The parties have a written independent contractor agreement.
Both Uber and Lyft structure their driver agreements to satisfy these conditions.
However, this classification carries enormous weight in a personal injury lawsuit. Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal held that a principal (i.e. employer) is generally not vicariously liable for an independent contractor’s negligence, because the principal lacks control over the manner in which the work is performed. (Stander v. Dispoz-O-Products, Inc., 973 So. 2d 603, 604) (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
When combined with the specific classification in § 627.748, the principle acts as a legal shield for rideshare companies in Florida courts.
Reinforcing the shield in 2025
Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal issued a landmark ruling on this issue in October 2025. In Abner v. Lyft Florida, Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 22, 2025), the court upheld summary judgment for Lyft on both vicarious liability and negligent hiring claims.
Summary judgment is a pre-trial court ruling that decides a civil case, or specific issues within the case, without going to a full trial. It’s granted when there’s no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; the evidence is so one-sided that a trial is unnecessary. Upholding summary judgment means that the appellate court reviewed the lower court’s decision granting summary judgment and found it correct.
In this case, Lyft driver Rolando Cepero was in a Miami-area collision with a motorcycle driven by Dexter Franklin in July 2017. At the time, Cepero had a passenger in his vehicle who had engaged his services through the Lyft platform. Natasha Abner, acting as Franklin’s guardian, filed a lawsuit against Lyft on two theories: First, that Lyft was vicariously liable as Cepero’s employer. Second, that Lyft had negligently hired and retained a dangerous driver.
The court rejected both of Abner’s arguments.
On vicarious liability: The court found that the TNC statute’s independent contractor classification applied because Lyft’s relationship with Cepero satisfied each of the four statutory conditions.
On negligent hiring: The court found that Lyft conducted the required criminal and driving background checks before it allowed Cepero onto the platform. The plaintiff showed that Cepero had a prior reckless driving citation, along with a handful of low passenger ratings, but the court found this was insufficient. The judge said the plaintiff’s evidence was “so sparse that it would fail to create an issue of fact under any reasonable construction of a TNC’s duty to a third party.” The court noted that the statute only disqualifies a driver who was convicted of certain offenses, but citations, alone, do not suffice.
Abner was the first Florida appellate decision to interpret liability protections under § 627.748. As a result, Florida trial courts have binding precedent to confirm that the conditions are met and that negligent hiring claims require more than routine traffic infractions or vague customer complaints.
In other words, precedent exists when there’s a previous decision with similar facts. The court is bound to follow that reasoning and deliver the same verdict as the previous court.
What the TNC law means for Florida rideshare accident victims
A Florida rideshare accident victim’s case falls under the combined effect of the three-phase insurance system, the independent contractor classification, and the Abner ruling. This creates a legal environment in which a rideshare accident victim must present a foolproof strategy to make a successful claim.
First, the phase of the driver’s app activity at the time of the crash is often the single most important fact in the case. The victim should do the following:
- Secure the app data as proof;
- Retain GPS logs and ride records before they can be lost or disputed;
- Maintain other digital and physical records as relevant.
Both Uber and Lyft maintain detailed electronic records, and subpoenaing this data promptly can make or break a claim. Read more here: Dashcams, Black Boxes, and GPS: The New Rules of Accident Law.
Second, the Florida modified comparative negligence rule, enacted in 2023 through HB 837, adds another layer of risk. Under Florida Statute § 768.81, if a plaintiff is more than 50% at fault for their own injury, they cannot receive any compensation.
Insurance companies have grown increasingly aggressive about attributing fault to injured parties. Rideshare cases, which often involve complex intersection dynamics or multi-vehicle collisions, present fertile ground for these arguments.
Third, the two-year statute of limitations shortens the timeline in which a plaintiff may file a lawsuit. A new law took effect in 2023 that shortens the deadline to file a personal injury lawsuit to two years from the date of the injury. A victim who delays seeking legal counsel might find that critical evidence has disappeared, or that the window to file a lawsuit has closed.
Fourth, the Florida PIP system adds another wrinkle. Although it’s scheduled to be repealed in July 2026, right now an accident victim must seek medical treatment within 14 days of the crash in order to preserve their PIP benefits. If you miss this deadline, it could cost you up to $10,000 in initial medical coverage, regardless of fault.
Ultimately, a rideshare accident in Florida isn’t just a typical car crash. It could be an insurance coverage dispute, wrapped inside fault determinations, wrapped inside a statutory framework that’s built to protect the TNC. The three-phase insurance system, the independent contractor classification, and the Abner court’s endorsement of those protections have made these types of cases among the most legally complex in Florida personal injury law.
If you’ve been in a rideshare accident in Florida, it’s imperative to find a skilled and experienced Florida personal injury lawyer who can work with you to determine the best strategic path to recovery. At Lorenzo & Lorenzo, we’re ready to take your case.
Accident Report Form
Sample post-accident report form to keep in your glove box - fill out at the scene or as soon as you can after a car accident
Download in PDF format