Andrew J. Koehler

Andrew Koehler counsels businesses that are facing mass tort and product liability risk. Andrew supports legal teams through research and helps draft filings for all phases of litigation.

View the full bio for Andrew J. Koehler at the Faegre Drinker website.

Articles by Andrew J. Koehler:


A Win for the Gig Economy: First Appellate Ruling on Florida’s TNC Statute Affirms Independent Contractor Protections

Share

In 2017, the Florida Legislature sought to regulate “Transportation Network Companies,” (TNCs), like Uber and Lyft, by passing section 627.748, Florida Statutes (2017) (TNC Statute). As discussed in more detail below, the TNC Statute generally shelters TNCs from vicarious liability for drivers’ actions if certain conditions are met. Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal recently issued the first state appellate ruling, confirming the protections afforded to TNCs under this Statute. See Abner v. Lyft Fla., Inc., No. 3D24-0479, 2025 WL 2969993 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Oct. 22, 2025). The Abner court agreed with the reasoning of the trial court and affirmed summary judgment for Lyft on a claim of vicarious liability under the TNC Statute, as well as a claim of negligent hiring and retention of the driver.

The case stemmed from a July 5, 2017, accident where a car driven by Rolando Cepero collided with a motorcycle driven by Dexter Franklin. At the time of the accident, Cepero was a ride-share contractor for Lyft providing a ride requested by a passenger through the Lyft platform. Plaintiff Natasha Abner, individually and as Franklin’s Guardian, sued Lyft claiming it was vicariously liable as Cepero’s “employer.” With her other claim, Abner also alleged Lyft negligently hired and retained Cepero. Lyft moved for summary judgment based on the TNC Statute, which went into effect just before the accident took place. The trial court granted summary judgment and Abner appealed.

Continue reading “A Win for the Gig Economy: First Appellate Ruling on Florida’s TNC Statute Affirms Independent Contractor Protections”

Florida Courts of Appeal Scrutinizing Punitive Damages Claims

Share

It is not uncommon for a product liability plaintiff to base a claim for punitive damages on little more than the same allegations that undergird a strict liability or negligence claim, while adding that the defendant knew that the product was unsafe or that the warnings were inadequate and marketed the product regardless. While that approach has worked at times in the past, recent decisions from Florida’s Third and Fourth District Courts of Appeal remind us that Florida imposes a high bar on punitive damages claims. Specifically, these courts highlighted several key points related to claims of punitive damages in product liability cases: (1) Florida’s statutory requirements for punitive damages are more stringent than some other states (specifically, California) and, therefore, orders from other states awarding punitive damages are unpersuasive; (2) Florida law presumes a product is not defective if it complies with applicable government regulations; (3) the level of negligence required to plead punitive damages in Florida requires conduct equivalent to establishing criminal manslaughter; and (4) the Florida Supreme Court has all but eliminated punitive damage awards in product liability cases. These cases are discussed in further detail below.

Continue reading “Florida Courts of Appeal Scrutinizing Punitive Damages Claims”

Upcoming Changes to Florida’s Civil Procedure Rules: What Litigators and their Clients Need to Know

Share

Last week, the Florida Supreme Court released two opinions [here and here] announcing changes to its rules of civil procedure in an attempt “to promote the fair and timely resolution of civil cases.” The amendments are broad and apply to many aspects of case management, scheduling, and discovery. Thus, Florida practitioners will want to familiarize themselves with the new variants before they go into effect on January 1, 2025. The following discussion highlights a subset of the changes that appear most likely to have an impact throughout a case’s lifetime.

Litigators will feel the impact right from the jump. While the current rules permit the courts more leeway when scheduling deadlines, the newly re-written Rule 1.200 will give courts 120 days to assign each case to one of three case management tracks—complex, general, or streamlined. The court may customize the process according to its needs, but the judge must set an actual or projected trial period according to the specified case management track. These buffed requirements will provide litigants with clearer expectations in their case’s timeline, and other changes work to ensure those dates—including trial—are delayed as little as possible. For example, under the modified Rule 1.200, attorneys must follow specific steps to modify case management deadlines, otherwise deadlines “must be strictly enforced unless changed by court order.” Moreover, one noteworthy change to Rule 1.460 provides that “motions to continue trial are disfavored and should be rarely granted and then only upon good cause shown.” [No. SC2023-0962 at 7–8.]

Continue reading “Upcoming Changes to Florida’s Civil Procedure Rules: What Litigators and their Clients Need to Know”