Transportation Network Company and Driver Insurance Requirements:
HB 315 revises Florida’s insurance requirements for transportation network companies (TNCs) and their drivers, such as rideshare services. The bill updates the minimum automobile insurance coverage that must be in place depending on the driver’s status: when a driver is logged onto the TNC platform but not on a ride, the bill requires primary liability coverage of at least $50,000 per person, $100,000 per incident, and $25,000 for property damage, along with personal injury protection and uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. When a driver is actively transporting a rider, the bill requires $1 million in primary liability coverage, plus the same categories of PIP and uninsured/underinsured coverage, with the PIP benchmark tied to limousine coverage standards.
The bill also clarifies that these coverage requirements may be met by insurance maintained by the driver, the vehicle owner, the TNC itself, or a combination of those sources. It would amend section 627.748, Florida Statutes, and take effect July 1, 2025. In practical terms, the bill would alter the insurance framework governing rideshare operations in Florida and could affect TNCs, drivers, vehicle owners, insurers, and passengers by setting explicit minimum coverage levels for different phases of a ride.
HB 315 would amend Florida’s transportation network company statute, section 627.748, to revise the mandatory insurance standards for rideshare operations. It would increase and clarify the liability, personal injury protection, and uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage required during both logged-on and active-ride periods, and it would expressly allow the required coverage to be satisfied through a driver’s policy, the TNC’s policy, or both. The bill would therefore affect insurance underwriting, TNC compliance practices, and the allocation of risk among drivers, companies, and insurers.
The available legislative record suggests limited public debate in the provided materials, but the bill’s structure indicates a policy approach focused on strengthening and clarifying insurance protections for rideshare passengers and third parties. Because it died in the Insurance & Banking Subcommittee, it did not advance through the committee process, which suggests either insufficient support, competing priorities, or unresolved concerns about the cost and scope of the insurance mandates. No vote tally or transcript is provided, so the overall sentiment can only be characterized as procedurally stalled rather than clearly favorable or opposed.
The main points of contention likely center on the higher insurance thresholds and who should bear the cost of compliance. TNCs, drivers, and insurers may differ over whether the required coverage levels are appropriate, whether the $1 million active-ride requirement is too burdensome, and how the costs would be passed through to drivers or riders. Another possible issue is the bill’s allocation of coverage responsibility among the driver, vehicle owner, and TNC, which can raise questions about primary versus excess coverage and how claims would be handled in practice.