Kevin D. Franz successfully obtained an Opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit holding that a Transportation Network Company (“TNC”) Commercial Auto Policy issued by an insurer to a ride share platform did not owe uninsured/underinsured motorist ("UM") coverage to a ride share platform driver injured while engaged in a prearranged ride.

The driver suffered injuries while dropping off a passenger who used the ride share app to secure a ride. The insurance policy did not include UM coverage, which had been rejected in writing by the ride share platform. The driver’s car, a 2022 Honda, was not specifically identified in the insurance policy. The driver sued the alleged UM tortfeasor for bodily injury damages, the insurance company for UM benefits, and the ride share platform for negligent misrepresentation. The insurer brought a declaratory judgment action in federal court seeking a declaration that there was no UM coverage under the Policy.

At issue was the following language in Florida’s TNC Statute: “The following automobile insurance requirements apply while a TNC driver is engaged in a prearranged ride: Automobile insurance that provides . . . Uninsured and underinsured vehicle coverage as required by s. 627.727.”

The insurer and the ride share platform argued that the plain language of the TNC Statute only requires UM coverage “as required by s. 627.727.”  And Section 627.727 did not require UM coverage in this instance.

The District Court Judge granted summary judgment in favor of the insurance company and the ride share platform. It found that the TNC statute did not require the insurance company to provide the ride share platform UM coverage under 672.727 because subsection (1) only requires UM coverage for policies covering a “specifically insured or identified motor vehicle.” Because the insurance policy did not specifically identify the driver’s Honda, there was no requirement to provide UM coverage.

The driver appealed, and the 11th Circuit affirmed based on the plain language of the TNC and UM statutes. It also recognized that the ride share platform expressly rejected UM coverage in writing, which is permitted under Florida’s UM statute.

This Opinion on an issue of first impression is important because it alerts carriers, TNCs, and TNC drivers on how to interpret the interplay between Florida’s TNC and UM statutes.

About Kevin D. Franz

Kevin D. Franz is a partner with the firm’s Appellate Practice division. Mr. Franz is Board Certified in Appellate Practice by The Florida Bar. He has received the Martindale-Hubbell AV Preeminent® Peer Review Rating, and has more than 15 years of experience handling all types of civil appellate proceedings. Mr. Franz has handled appeals and petitions in all five district courts of appeal for the State of Florida, the Supreme Court of Florida, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. He has presented oral argument before all five district courts of appeal and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Click here to read more