Florida Appeals Court Blocks Punitive Damages Claim in Car-Sharing Crash Case

Plaintiffs claiming punitive damages in lawsuits must meet a high bar, a Florida appeals court found in overturning a trial court’s decision in a fatal accident involving an online car-sharing platform.

Turo Inc., a firm that connects renters with automobile owners, cannot be subjected to punitive damage claims in an amended complaint brought by people and family members injured in a 2023 crash, Florida’s 6^th District Court of Appeals noted in its Jan. 30 opinion.

“In sum, because there was no reasonable showing, either by evidence in the record or by proffer, that Turo was guilty of intentional misconduct or gross negligence, Appellees failed to meet their burden under (Florida Statute) 768.72 to show there was a reasonable basis for recovery of punitive damages,” Judge Carrie Ann Wozniak wrote in the opinion.

Florida statutes, case law and rules of court are clear that claimants must make a “reasonable showing” that punitive damages were warranted and could be recovered. A defendant may be held liable for punitive amounts “only if the trier of fact finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant is ‘personally guilty of intentional misconduct or gross negligence,’” the law reads.

The passengers had filed suit after the blown-tire accident, then later sought to amend the complaint to add punitive damages.

“Because the allegations and the evidentiary support, taken together, fail to show that Turo had actual knowledge of any wrongful conduct, Appellees’ punitive damages claim fails as to intentional misconduct,” the appeals court panel wrote.

The case now goes back to Polk County Circuit Court to proceed with the underlying lawsuit—without punitive damage claims.

The decision underscores the strict rules that plaintiffs must follow under Florida law when seeking punitive damages—damages that businesses, property-casualty insurance groups and tort-reform advocates have fought against for years. But the 6^th District Court sidestepped the question of exactly what level of proof plaintiffs must meet when amending a lawsuit to add punitive damages.

Florida appellate courts have split on that question in recent years. In a case involving Federal Insurance Co., the 4^th District Court of Appeals in 2023 held that a trial court must make a preliminary determination that a jury could find convincing evidence that punitive damages are warranted. But the 2^nd and 5^th District appeals courts, including in a case involving Florida Peninsula Insurance, have found that state law does not require a plaintiff to prove an entitlement to punitive measures at the pleading stage, early in the litigation process, the court explained.

But in the Turo case, the plaintiffs did not meet their burden under either standard, the 6^th District judges wrote.

The claimants in the Turo case had rented a car through Turo from the owner in May 2023. The renter-driver noted that the tire-pressure sensor light was on. But the owner said it was “on all the time,” that the sensor was malfunctioning, and that the tires were OK. Shortly after, that, however, the right rear tire blew out, causing the vehicle to fishtail, veer off the road and flip over, killing one passenger and injuring several others.

In attempting to amend the lawsuit complaint, the plaintiffs argued that Turo requires the car to undergo annual inspections, and for the owner to follow a checklist before releasing the car. Renters can also provide feedback to Turo through the app, and the injured parties claimed that Turo knew of the tire danger.

But the court noted that although multiple renters had noted the tire-pressure light, a Turo corporate representative had said that no renter had complained about it directly to Turo. “Appellees acknowledge in their proposed amended complaint that Turo did not review the pre-trip inspection reports; accordingly, we cannot find ‘actual knowledge’ of the tire warning light exists,” the appellate judges said.

The court also found no evidence that the vehicle had failed its annual inspection.

“It was … error to grant Appellees’ motion for leave to add a punitive damages claim to their complaint,” the court concluded. “Accordingly, we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

The opinion is available here.

Topics
Auto
Florida