A recent Florida appellate decision offers a valuable blueprint for insurers and corporate legal teams seeking to limit exposure in questionable vicarious liability claims. In Campo v. Uber Technologies, Inc., the Third District Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of Uber, finding the company was not liable for an accident involving a former driver who was not engaged in Uber-related activity at the time. This case highlights best practices for insurers and defense counsel when navigating similar claims.

The Case

The plaintiff in Campo sued Uber after a former Uber driver struck and killed the decedent while reversing his personal vehicle. Plaintiff, a representative of the decedent’s estate, argued Uber was vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.[1] However, Uber successfully demonstrated—through sworn declarations, internal data records, and expert affidavits—that Castillo was not logged into the Uber app and had not driven for Uber for nearly five months before the accident.[2] Plaintiff contended Castillo had a second phone in his car, evidence that he could have been logged-in to the Uber app on this second phone.

The trial court granted summary judgment in Uber’s favor, concluding Castillo was not engaged in any employment activity for Uber at the time of the accident. The appellate court affirmed, rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that Castillo’s possession of a second phone created a factual dispute, stating such a claim was pure speculation.[3]

1. Uber Went the Extra Mile

Uber’s defense was effective for two main reasons: 1) Uber presented conclusive, uncontroverted evidence that Castillo was not working at the time of the accident, and 2) Uber successfully established plaintiff lacked the necessary evidence to meet their burden. This case highlights the significance of Florida moving to the federal standard for motions for summary judgment. Florida state courts now require plaintiffs to provide more than theory or speculation to avoid summary judgment.

While Uber may have won the motion simply by arguing the lack of evidence presented by plaintiff, Uber strengthened its position by presenting documentary evidence disproving plaintiff’s theory. The strategy demonstrates the importance of internal records, driver logs, and expert affidavits in defense strategies and how useful these tools are at the summary judgment stage.[4]

2. Five Stars for Recordkeeping and Activity Tracking

A central issue in the case was whether Castillo was engaged in Uber-related work at the time of the accident. Florida courts have long held that an employer is not liable if an employee has “stepped away” from their duties, and the courts applied this law to the ridesharing context to grant and affirm summary judgment.[5] Clean, thorough, and searchable records and digital activity logs are tremendous resources for industries where employees or contractors must log into and use an app to perform their duties.

3. Identifying Inference-Stacking is the Key

Florida law prohibits “stacking inferences,” meaning liability cannot be based on multiple speculative assumptions.[6] In Campo, plaintiff suggested Castillo might have been using a different additional phone for Uber, but this argument was dismissed as conjecture. Defense counsel must be prompt to spot arguments crafted upon speculation disguised as evidence.

4. Shifting the Gears

Uber, as the movant, had the burden to prove it was entitled to summary judgment. However, once Uber presented uncontroverted evidence, they shifted the burden to plaintiff to provide admissible evidence contradicting Uber’s claims—which they failed to do. Florida courts require plaintiffs to meet a certain evidentiary standard to defeat summary judgment—specifically, the evidence must be more than a “scintilla” and more than “merely colorable.”[7] Defendants should adopt a proactive approach: locate and present clear evidence early to shift the burden and force plaintiffs to prove their case at summary judgment.

Takeaway: A Roadmap for Limiting Exposure

The Campo decision demonstrates the benefit of proactively, versus reactively, defending a case. In this case, defense counsel obtained this result by locating clear, time-stamped records of employee or contractor activity, challenging speculation aggressively, and leveraging Florida’s rule against stacking inferences to dismantle weak arguments.

By adopting these principles, insurers and defense teams can reduce litigation risk, cut unnecessary costs, and protect corporate interests before a case ever reaches trial.

Keep Reading

Ask Atty: William Johnson Privacy vs. Relevance: How Deep Can Discovery Go in Colorado Lien Cases? Stale Bread: Workers Accuse Panera of Wage Theft Civil Procedure Updates to Know in New York for 2025 Third Time Was Not the Charm Will Arbitration Be a Slam Dunk for LA Clippers? California: Key Laws and Regulations to Watch in 2025 Delivering Justice in a Florida UM/UIM Case Do Insurance Companies Owe a Duty to Notify Adult Children Residing with Their Parents?

More by this author

Off the App, Off the Hook: Defeating Vicarious Liability Jurors Take Reptilian Bite Out of R.J. Reynolds with Florida Nuclear Verdict® Pump Up the Trial Jams – A Curated Playlist to Take Back Justice for All in Trial

Sources

[1] Campo v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 3D23-0802, 2025 WL 15388 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan. 2, 2025).

[2] Id. at *2.

[3] Id. at *4.

[4] In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Proc. 1.510, 309 So. 3d 192, 193 (Fla. 2020).

[5] Johnson v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 429 So. 2d 744, 746 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).

[6] Leftwich v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D436, at *3 (Fla. 5th DCA Feb. 22, 2024).

[7] Walker v. Darby, 911 F.2d 1573, 1576-77 (11th Cir. 1990).