Motion To Dismiss Granted in Favor of Lyft in Case Where Lyft Driver Assaulted Passenger

In the case of Matos v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 23-5038-KSM (E.D. Pa. Feb. 3, 2025 Marston, J.), the court granted a Motion to Dismiss filed by a ride share Defendant in a case where the Plaintiff passenger was assaulted by the driver.

The court noted that, under Pennsylvania law, a ride share Defendant is not automatically liable anytime a driver hired over its App commits an assault.

The Plaintiff was noted to have failed to pled prior bad acts of the driver that should have put the Defendant on notice of the driver’s alleged dangerous propensities as required to prove a claim of negligent hiring.

The court noted that evidence of prior automobile accidents by the driver are not proof of violent propensities.

The court additionally found that there was no independent action for respondeat superior under the facts alleged.

The court additionally found that the act of assault passengers was not within the scope of a ride share driver’s employment.

The court otherwise found that the Plaintiff did not allege facts sufficient to establish a duty to train a driver on something as elementary as not assaulting passengers.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Federal Court Finds that Lyft Driver Able to Pursue Claim That Driver Was Owed Uninsured Motorist Coverage From Lyft

In the case of Ahtasham v. Lyft, Inc., No. 2:24-CV-01673-GJP (E.D. Pa. Pappert, J.), the Eastern District Federal Court ruled in favor with a Lyft driver in that driver’s contractual dispute with Lyft over the availability of $1million dollars in uninsured motorist coverage.

According to the Opinion, Lyft filed a Motion to Dismiss a lawsuit brought by a Lyft driver who claimed that he was entitled to uninsured motorist coverage following a motor vehicle accident.

The court determined that the terms of service agreement and a promise in a driver guidebook was a binding contract between Lyft and one of its drivers who was the Plaintiff at issue in this case.

According to the Opinion, the guidebook promised Lyft drivers that “‘we’ve got you with our $1million insurance policy,’” and that “‘there are four coverages included in our insurance policy.’” including underinsured/uninsured (UM/UIM motorist coverage).

In the Opinion, it was indicated that the Plaintiff claimed he was denied coverage by the UM carrier after he was in an accident with an uninsured driver. Coverage was denied even though Lyft previously allegedly informed the Plaintiff that he and his car would be insured.

According to the Opinion, prior to the accident, Lyft had waived the UM/UIM coverage for its Pennsylvania drivers, without informing them.

The Plaintiff filed suit against Lyst seeking entitlement to uninsured motorist benefits, as well as claims of breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, violations of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and negligent misrepresentation.

In his Complaint, the Plaintiff additionally sought a declaratory judgment that Lyft had a duty to provide him with up to $1 million dollars in uninsured motorist coverage.

The breach of contract claim revolved around the parties’ alleged agreement and the driver guidebook, which Lyft argued was not part of its contract with the Plaintiff.

The court concluded that the agreement’s interpretation, including whether it incorporated references to the guidebook’s UM/UIM coverage promise, was governed by California law as that was where Lyft maintained its principal place of business.

The Plaintiff claimed that the driver’s agreement and the guidebook, when considered together, constituted his contract with Lyft that he relied upon. The Plaintiff more specifically asserted that he relied upon the provision and the guidebook that “in the event of an accident…our UM/UIM coverage will apply up to $1million per accident.”

Lyft attempted to argue that this representation was barred as a matter of law by the parol evidence rule. 

The court found that the parol evidence rule did not serve to exclude evidence that is offered to explain any ambiguity or to otherwise assist in the interpretation of the terms of an alleged agreement. 

The court noted that, where it is decided by the court that the language of a contract is ambiguous or fairly susceptible of more than one interpretation, extrinsic evidence relevant to prove any of the possible meanings is admissible to assist in the determination of the term of the contract. 

The court noted that, in this matter, the agreement contained two provisions that indicated that the guidebooks promised to provide Lyft drivers with uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage was part of the contractual relationship between the drivers and the company.

Overall, the court found that the Plaintiff’s allegations that Lyft breached the guidebook’s clear promise of UM/UIM coverage was sufficient to plausibly state a claim for breach of contract.

The court also rejected arguments by Lyft that a disclaimer in the guidebook prevented the guidebook from being interpreted as it was being interpreted by the court.

In the end, the federal court judge from the Eastern District denied Lyft’s Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit brought by this Lyft driver who claims that he is entitled to uninsured motorist coverage under a Lyft Insurance policy.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


I send thanks to Attorney Jimmy Kunnell of the Feasterville-Trevose, PA law firm of Kunnell Law for bringing this case to my attention.


See also: Article “Federal Judge Sized With Lyft Driver In Contractual Dispute Over $1M Uninsured Motorist Coverage” By Riley Brennan of The Legal Intelligencer (Sept. 13, 2024).

Court Dismisses Claims of Negligent Hiring and Supervision, as well as Negligent Entrustment, Against Lyft

In the case of Henry v. Marcelin, No. 24-1891 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 25, 2024 Arteaga, J.), a judge in the Eastern District Federal Court of Pennsylvania granted the Defendant rideshare company’s Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings in a personal injury case arising out of a motor vehicle collision.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was a passenger that was involved in a motor vehicle accident that involved a rideshare vehicle.

Among her claims, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant, rideshare company (Lyft), was responsible on theories of negligent hiring and negligent entrustment. The Defendant rideshare company sought a partial judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the Plaintiff’s claim alleging negligent hiring, retention, training, and supervision, along with a claim for negligent entrustment, failed to state a claim within relief could be granted.

The court granted the rideshare defendant’s motion after finding that the Plaintiff failed to identify any past misconduct by the driver of the rideshare vehicle that would have put a reasonable employer on notice of an employee’s propensity for dangerous activities. The court also noted that there were no allegations offered by the Plaintiff to support an inference that the Defendant rideshare company knew that its driver was allegedly unqualified.

The court declined to recognize a genuine duty to investigate on the rideshare company’s part.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claims of negligent hiring and related claims. 

The court also dismissed the claims for negligent entrustment. These claims were dismissed without prejudice and with leave granted to the Plaintiff to amend on the chance that the Plaintiff might be able to allege facts sufficient to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.


Source “Digest of Recent Opinions.” www.Law.com (Pennsylvania Law Weekly) (Oct. 11, 2024).

Motion To Dismiss Personal Injury Claims Against Lyft Denied

In the case of Doe v. Lyft, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-03990-KSM (E.D. Pa. July 19, 2024 Marston, J.), the court addressed a Motion to Dismiss filed by a transportation network company, Lyft, Inc., and its former driver in connection with an alleged sexual assault committed by the driver.  The court granted the Motion to Dismiss but allowed the Plaintiff the right to amend.  

In part, the court held that the Plaintiff failed to allege an actionable claim for negligent supervision where she alleged, for the first time in opposition to the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, that its driver was the subject of four prior passenger complaints.  The court allowed the Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint to more specifically plead the negligent supervision claim.  

The court also found that the Plaintiff’s negligent undertaking claim failed for two reasons. First, the court found that the Plaintiff failed to allege that the Defendant undertook to protect her from its ride share driver.  While the Plaintiff seemed to link the Defendant’s provision of ride share services with a duty to protect her from harm as a rider, the Plaintiff did not allege a “specific undertaking” by the Defendant in that regard.  

Additionally, the court found that, even if the Defendant allegedly undertook a duty to protect the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff failed to state a claim for negligent undertaking because she asserted only that the Defendant should have provided additional safety features on its platform, not that it implemented its existing scheme negligently.  

Accordingly, the court dismissed the Plaintiff’s negligent undertaking claim.  However, this claim was dismissed without prejudice to the Plaintiff’s right to file an Amended Complaint.

The Plaintiff’s separate negligent misrepresentation claim broadly alleged that the Defendant falsely advertised itself as a safe rideshare option.  The court dismissed this part of the claim after finding that, to the extent the Plaintiff did allegedly identify actionable statements by the Defendant in its marketing materials, the Plaintiff still failed to plead facts suggesting that these statements were false and, as such, the Plaintiff had not stated a valid claim of negligent misrepresentation.  Although the court dismissed this claim as well, the Plaintiff was again allowed an opportunity to file an Amended Complaint.

The court also dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages, without prejudice.  The court allowed the Plaintiff the opportunity to replead those allegations should she have facts to support the same. 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.

Source “The Legal Intelligencer Federal Case Alert,” www.Law.com (Aug. 9, 2024). 

Source of above image: Photo by Thought Catalog on www.unsplash.com.

ARTICLE: Quandary on Whether Limited Tort or Full Tort Applies to Uber Drivers

The below article of mine was published in the July 2, 2019 edition of the Pennsylvania Law Weekly and is republished here with permission:

Quandary on Whether Limited Tort or Full Tort Applies to Uber Drivers

By Daniel E. Cummins | June 27, 2019

Pennsylvania Law Weekly

As the use of Uber and Lyft rideshares become more prevalent in Pennsylvania, it is more likely that motor vehicle accidents involving such drivers will increase and thereby give rise to novel issues of law.

One such issue is whether an Uber or Lyft driver who has elected the limited tort option under his own personal automobile insurance policy will be deemed to be a full tort plaintiff if he is involved in an accident while driving as an Uber or Lyft driver. The quandary in this regard is whether the Uber or Lyft driver’s use of his own personal vehicle for business purposes triggers an exception to the limited tort option.

Limited Tort

Under the tort option statute found at 75 Pa.C.S.A. Section 1705, carriers are required to secure from their customers a written election of either full tort coverage or limited tort coverage whenever a personal automobile insurance policy is sold.

Full tort coverage, sold at a higher premium, allows an insured to pursue a claim for noneconomic damages, otherwise known as pain and suffering damages, without regard for the types of injury sustained by the plaintiff.

On the other hand, with limited tort coverage, an insured will pay a lower premium but, in exchange, agrees that he cannot recover pain and suffering damages unless and until the injured insured shows that he has sustained a serious injury as a result of the accident. A serious injury in this context is a injury that results in a substantial impairment of a body function, serious permanent disfigurement or death.

The grey area for Uber and Lyft drivers is this—where person has chosen the limited tort alternative, there is an exception to the rule where that driver is operating a commercial vehicle as opposed to a “private passenger vehicle.” The question as to whether the use of a personal vehicle as an Uber or Lyft vehicle changes that private vehicle into a commercial vehicle has not been answered by the statutory law or the courts of Pennsylvania to date.

Status of Uber or Lyft Drivers

The legal issue of the tort option coverage applicable to Uber and Lyft drivers is complicated by the fact that such drivers use their personal vehicles in different capacities at different times. The lingo in the field is that Uber and Lyft drivers have different periods, or types, of driving statuses.

Period 1 is considered to be when the driver is driving their vehicle only in a personal capacity and without regard to the fact that they, at other times, are “on the app” and looking for fares to pick up as Uber or Lyft drivers.

Period 2 is when an Uber or Lyft driver is “on the app” and ready and willing to pick up a fare to drive somewhere but has not yet been summoned and when the driver has been summoned and is on the way to pick up the fare.

Period 3 is considered to be when the Uber or Lyft has a customer in the car as a passenger.

Statutes on Uber/Lyft Insurance

The statutory law pertaining to the mandatory requirements for insurance coverages for Uber and Lyft drivers can be found at both 66 Pa.C.S.A. Section 2601, et al., and 53 Pa.C.S.A. Section 57A01, et al., and is titled “Transportation Network Companies.”

The new law defines what a transportation network company is and identifies the relevant driver(s) included under the ambit of the statute. This new law also outlines a list of qualifications and standards that the company must meet before being permitted to operate in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

In addition, the law provides for the mandated minimums for liability insurance coverages and first-party benefits coverages depending on which scenario applies.

These scenarios include where the driver of the vehicle does not have passengers and is logged into the transportation network company network (presumably applying to the situation where the driver is on the way to pick up a fare), and where the driver of the vehicle does have passengers.

It is suggested that automobile accident litigators should review these statutes to become aware of these mandatory minimum liability coverages and first-party insurance coverages. These coverages were reviewed in a Nov. 16, 2017, Pennsylvania Law Weekly article titled “New Law: Mandated Coverages for Uber and Lyft Vehicles” by Daniel E. Cummins and Stephen T. Kopko.

According to Uber’s website, companies that are issuing these types of insurance policies include, at a minimum, James River Insurance Co., Progressive, Allstate and Farmers Insurance.

What the new law does not cover is the limited tort vs. full tort question for the separate insurance policies that are issued specifically for Uber and Lyft drivers over and above the personal automobile insurance such drivers may already have on their vehicles.

As such, there may be certain Uber and Lyft drivers who have elected the limited tort option under their personal automobile insurance policy and who have additional insurance Uber or Lyft-type policies for their commercial or business use of their vehicle that are silent on the tort option question.

A Requirement of Statutory Construction

Given that there is no statutory law or case law on point to answer the question presented, it appears that, if faced with the issue of whether an Uber or Lyft driver who has elected the limited tort option should nevertheless be considered a full tort plaintiff, the courts will have to engage in a construction of the statutes in place as compared to the insurance policies in question.

To the extent that a review of this question of law requires the court to interpret Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, the courts can be guided by the Statutory Construction Act, 1 Pa.C.S. Sections 1501-1991.

Pursuant to the Statutory Construction Act, the object of all statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the General Assembly’s intention. When the words of a statute are clear and free from ambiguity, the letter of the statute is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.

Turning to the applicable statutes, under 75 Pa.C.S.A. Section 1705(d)(3), it is provided that “an individual otherwise bound by the limited tort election shall retain full tort rights if injured while an occupant of a motor vehicle other than a private passenger motor vehicle.”

Under 75 Pa.C.S.A. Section 1702, a ‘private passenger motor vehicle’ is defined as a “four-wheel motor vehicle, except recreational vehicles not intended for highway use, which is insured by a natural person and … is a passenger car neither used as a public or livery conveyance nor rented to others …”

Under these statutory provisions, it is likely that a court would rule that a car or truck used by an Uber or Lyft driver is obviously a “four-wheel motor vehicle” that is “insured by a natural person” by virtue of the driver’s personal automobile insurance coverage. See 75 Pa.C.S.A. Section 1702.

However, according to the same statutory language, the vehicle would fall out of the scope of the definition of a private passenger vehicle whenever that vehicle is “used as a public or livery conveyance.” A livery is otherwise known as a vehicle for hire.

Therefore, it would appear that, if faced with the issue, the courts could find that, although an Uber or Lyft driver had selected the limited tort option under their own personal policy, such a driver would nevertheless be deemed to be a full tort plaintiff if involved in an accident while the driver had a passenger in the car as a paying fare on a particular trip.

However, a wrinkle in this regard is that it could also be argued that, once the car is being used as a livery or a hired car, then that vehicle would fall within a business use exception under the personal automobile insurance policy such that that personal policy would not be applicable to the accident.

This would leave the plaintiff with only the Uber or Lyft liability policy in place under which no tort option election is apparently required. Such a plaintiff driver may then arguably have no tort option election in place and may, as a result, be found to be covered by the full tort option.

It also appears that, if a limited tort Uber or Lyft driver, was not “on the app” and was driving their vehicle solely for personal reasons, that driver would still be a limited tort plaintiff if involved in an accident on that particular trip.

Other grey areas in this regard involve those cases where the Uber or Lyft driver is driving around while “on the app” waiting for a fare to contact them for a ride as well as when the Uber or Lyft driver has received a message from a fare and is on the way to pick up that person for a ride. The courts may struggle with these scenarios in determining whether that Uber or Lyft driver should be deemed a limited tort or full tort plaintiff where that driver had previously elected the limited tort option.

In the end, it will surely be interesting to see how these novel areas of law pertaining to motor vehicle accidents involving Uber and Lyft drivers begin to play out in the courts across the commonwealth.

Daniel E. Cummins is a partner in the Scranton law firm of Foley, Comerford & Cummins where he focuses his practice in automobile accident litigation matters.

Copyright 2019. ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved.

ARTICLE: Mandated Coverages for Uber and Lyft Vehicles

The below article written by my associate attorney, Stephen T. Kopko, and myself appeared in the November 16, 2017 edition of the Pennsylvania Law Weekly.  It is republished here with permission.

New Law:  Mandated Coverages for Uber and Lyft Vehicles

By Daniel E. Cummins and Stephen T. Kopko | November 16, 2017

Pennsylvania Law Weekly

Recent news stories have emphasized the emerging trend of transportation network companies, such as Uber and Lyft, around the world. These types of ride-sharing companies are continuing to develop across the commonwealth of Pennsylvania as well.

This increasing use of transportation network companies by the public led the Pennsylvania General Assembly to pass legislation last to regulate such businesses. Of note are the statutory requirements for insurance coverages mandated for transportation network companies, such as Uber and Lyft, and their drivers.

A New Law

Senate Bill 984 was signed by Gov. Tom Wolf on Nov. 4, 2016. This law relates to the operation of ride-sharing companies in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Under this bill, certain sections of Pennsylvania statutes were amended to include provisions and regulations related to these ride-sharing companies.

The new law can be found at both 66 Pa.C.S.A. Section 2601, et al., and 53 Pa.C.S.A.  §57A01, et al., and is titled “Transportation Network Companies.”

The new law defines what a transportation network company is and identifies the relevant driver(s) included under the ambit of the statute. This new law also outlines a list of qualifications and standards that the company must meet before being permitted to operate in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Insurance Coverage Requirements

The new law also outlines the insurance coverage that either the driver of a ride-sharing vehicle must possess, or that the transportation network company must provide, to cover both the driver of the vehicle and any passengers that may use the service.

The “financial responsibility requirements” and the “Insurance requirements” mandated under this new law can be found at both 66 Pa.C.S.A. Section 2603.1 and at 53 Pa.C.S.A. Section 57A07. The language of each statute is essentially identical.

According to the provisions under 53 Pa.C.S.A. 57a07 (a), a “transportation network company driver or transportation network company on the driver’s behalf shall maintain primary automobile insurance that recognizes that the driver is a transportation network company driver or otherwise uses a vehicle to transport passengers for compensation.”

The new legislation then breaks down different scenarios and identifies what insurance mandates apply to each situation. These scenarios include where the driver of the vehicle does not have passengers and is logged into the transportation network company network (presumably applying to the situation where the driver is on the way to pick up a fare), and where the driver of the vehicle does have passengers.

Under the statutory language found at 53 Pa.C.S.A. 57a07(b) or 66 Pa.C.S.A. Section 2603.1(a)(2), where an Lyft or Uber driver is logged onto the digital network and is able to receive transportation requests but is not yet actually engaged in a prearranged ride, that driver must be covered by a policy providing bodily injury liability coverage of $50,000 per person/$100,000 per accident, along with $25,000 in property damage coverage. The insurance policy covering this scenario is also required to offer first party medical benefits coverage of at least $5,000 for the driver and $25,000 for any pedestrians injured.

Under the separate scenario where a Lyft or Uber driver has been engaged in a prearranged ride and does have a passenger in the vehicle, the statutory language found at 53. Pa.C.S.A. 57a07(c) and 66 Pa.C.S.A. Section 2603.1(a)(3)  requires that the applicable liability policy contain coverage of at least $500,000 for death, bodily injury and property damages claims. The policy must also provide for first party medical benefits coverage of at least $5,000 for the driver and $25,000 for any passengers or pedestrians injured.

These coverages, separate from the driver’s inapplicable personal automobile insurance coverage, may be secured or supplied either by the driver of the car, the transportation network company, or any combination of the two, see 53 Pa.C.S.A 57a07 (d); 66 Pa.C.S.A. Section 2603.1(a)(2)(iii);  66 Pa.C.S.A. Section 2603.1(a)(3)(iii).   

Priority of Coverages

One issue that has arisen with companies such as Uber and Lyft is the extent to which an insurance carrier providing personal automobile insurance coverage to a person who chooses to use a personal vehicle in a ride-sharing business capacity may deny coverage under that policy.

Importantly, 53 Pa.C.S.A57a07 (f) and 66 Pa.C.S.A. Section 2603.1(a)(4)  both provide, as follows: “Primary insurance. Coverage under an automobile insurance policy maintained under this section shall be primary and not be dependent on a personal automobile insurer first denying a claim nor shall a personal automobile insurance policy be required to first deny a claim.”

As such, the statutory framework confirms that a Lyft or Uber driver’s separate personal automobile insurance coverage typically will not come into play if the driver is involved in an accident resulting in personal injuries or property damages.

This Pennsylvania law specifically provides that carriers that write personal automobile insurance in the commonwealth may exclude coverage, including liability coverage, property damage coverage, along with UM/UIM benefits and first party medical benefits coverage, for accidents involving an Uber or Lyft driver involved in an accident that occurs while its insured driver is logged into the transportation network company’s network and seeking customers or is engaged in a prearranged ride with a customer. See  53 Pa.C.S.A 57a07 (l)  and 66 Pa.C.S.A. Section 2603.1(a)(2). The law also upholds the right of a carrier who has excluded coverage to also assert that it has no duty to defend any claims arising out of an accident involving a Lyft or Uber vehicle as well.

Accordingly, the right of personal automobile insurance carriers to deny coverage in cases involving accidents arising out of the use of personal vehicles for transportation network companies has been upheld in the regulatory scheme passed by the Pennsylvania Legislature.

The law does otherwise also confirm that nothing in its provisions prevents a personal automobile insurance carrier from providing coverage for drivers engaged in Uber or Lyft activities should the carrier wish to sell that type of coverage.

As a protective measure for the public at large, the law additionally imposes duties upon the transportation network company to ensure that the mandated insurance coverage is in place prior to allowing a driver to drive for the company.

The statutes also otherwise provide that where the insurance that may have been secured by a driver for Uber or Lyft rides has lapsed or is inadequate, then the insurance coverage maintained by the transportation network company shall provide the coverage required by this law and the transportation network company’s carrier would have the duty to defend the claim.

Other Notable Provisions

In other notable provisions under the statute, it is provided that a transportation network company or a driver may not request or require a passenger to sign a waiver of potential liability for personal injury or property damage claims.

Nor can the transportation network company require any of its drivers to sign any waivers for potential liability for personal injury or property damage claims as a condition for entering into a lease agreement,  see 53 Pa.C.S.A. Section 57A07(m).

It is noted that, as of this time, there has been no case law handed down interpreting this statute since it was passed almost a year ago in November 2016. However, it can be anticipated that, as the use of Uber and Lyft continues to rise in Pennsylvania, insurance coverage decisions are likely to be generated in the unfortunate situation of an accident involving such a ride-sharing vehicle.

Daniel E. Cummins is a partner and civil litigator with the Scranton law firm of Foley Comerford & Cummins. His civil litigation blog, Tort Talk, can be viewed at www.TortTalk.com. Cummins also provides Mediation Services at Cummins Mediation Services.  

Stephen T. Kopko is an associate with the firm who focuses on the defense of auto accident and premises liability matters.