Uber Lawsuit Go Time in Florida

Goodmorning, Mr Patronis, Chief Financial Officer for the State of Florida:

This communication is to advise you of pending legal action against the State of Florida per:

768.28(6)(a) and (b):

According to section 768.28(6)(a):

An action may not be instituted on a claim against the state or one of its agencies or subdivisions unless the claimant presents the claim in writing to the appropriate agency, and also, except as to any claim against a municipality or the Florida Space Authority, presents such claim in writing to the Department of Financial Services, within 3 years after such claim accrues and the Department of Financial Services or the appropriate agency denies the claim in writing․

The notice requirement is a condition precedent to maintaining an action. § 768.28(6)(b). “[T]he purpose of the notice requirement is to provide the State and its agencies sufficient notice of claims filed against them and time to investigate and respond to those claims.”

Unless your department covers the requirement to "presents the claim in writing to the appropriate agency" please advise on the appropriate department to advise and contact information that represents the State of Florida.

The pending legal action is in reference to the (antitrust) 1988 available for hire driver business permit caps and insurance oversight powers granted to local regulators by the State of Florida in 1988 to circumvent FTC antitrust laws and the recently adopted rideshare/TNC legislation that collectively blocks free market unrestrained trade and negates the right to INDUSTRY guaranteed in the Constitution of the State of Florida for owners and driver operators of motor vehicles in service to transport riders for compensation.

If our claim is denied by your office and the State of Florida we expect to prevail in a Declaratory Judgement filing including a request for damages in our prayer for relief.

If our claim is denied we also expect to prevail in proving in a court of law that elected officials such as Brandes, Gaetz, and Young acted as business managers for Uber, Lyft, PCIAA, and all Florida personal motor vehicle insurance companies
instead of conducting themselves as lawmakers we trust to create legislation FOR WE THE PEOPLE while shifting all these stakeholder's financial responsibility and business liability risks to available for hire drivers who use a motor vehicle of any description to transport riders for compensation.

We also expect to prevail in proving in a court of law the failure of the State of Florida to repeal the 1988 code empowering local regulators to regulate business permit caps and control insurance oversight not necessarily corresponding to Florida statutes 324.032(1)(a) and (b) which destroyed the ground transportation industry in the first place created monopolistic opportunities for Uber and Lyft (either with or without knowledge) and resulted in indentured servitude for rideshare drivers hostage to the Uber and Lyft platforms or the very real threat of extinction for taxi and limo drivers.

In our prayer for relief, either negotiated directly with the State of Florida or in a court of law we request the following:

1. The 1988 code empowering local regulators to pass business permit caps for independent driver operators as well as their insurance oversight is repealed.

2) Either local regulators or FLHSMV will be empowered to issue independent operator business permits for any taxi, uber, limo, or lyft driver that wants one.

3) Total repeal of the rideshare TNC bill.

4) Permanent Injunctive Relief on any language used in the State of Florida and on local levels claiming drivers are independent contractors, especially when open litigation on the matter is active in other states.

5) A new TNC bill that only addresses the primary financial responsibility and business liability of platforms such as UBER and Lyft to eliminate the opportunity to risk shift to drivers.

6) Permanent Injunctive Relief on any lobby backed demanding "agnostic" "ambiguous" language included in legislation such as risk shift "either the TNC or the driver"

7) In a pre court filing settlement with the State of Florida financial damages will be capped at the costs for taxi, uber, limo, and lyft drivers or owners to form an insurance captive that will then be funded by owner/policy holders to cover secondary property damage and bodily injury while on duty and primary while off duty and initial costs to purchase re-insurance to support the model.

8) #7 does not negate TNCs or Taxi Limo Companies requirements to provide primary insurance coverage while the driver on their respective platforms is "on duty".

9) The ability of any available for hire driver or vehicle owner to purchase 24/7 livery use accepted motor vehicle insurance under for hire statute 324.032(1)(b) from any personal insurers or specialty commercial brokers that choose to make said coverage available for purchase.

PLEASE be advised we maintain the right to add "prayers for relief."

PLEASE also be advised this communication will be publically posted on social media driver sites to create awareness for available for hire drivers since 2013 who are not already affiliated with The Ride Hail Alliance.

Thankyou for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Best,

Jennifer Condie

Ride Hail Alliance

640 Clematis St WPB Florida 33402







Sent from my MetroPCS 4G LTE Android Device
 

FormerTaxiDriver♧

Well-Known Member
Goodmorning, Mr Patronis, Chief Financial Officer for the State of Florida:

This communication is to advise you of pending legal action against the State of Florida per:

768.28(6)(a) and (b):

According to section 768.28(6)(a):

An action may not be instituted on a claim against the state or one of its agencies or subdivisions unless the claimant presents the claim in writing to the appropriate agency, and also, except as to any claim against a municipality or the Florida Space Authority, presents such claim in writing to the Department of Financial Services, within 3 years after such claim accrues and the Department of Financial Services or the appropriate agency denies the claim in writing․

The notice requirement is a condition precedent to maintaining an action. § 768.28(6)(b). “[T]he purpose of the notice requirement is to provide the State and its agencies sufficient notice of claims filed against them and time to investigate and respond to those claims.”

Unless your department covers the requirement to "presents the claim in writing to the appropriate agency" please advise on the appropriate department to advise and contact information that represents the State of Florida.

The pending legal action is in reference to the (antitrust) 1988 available for hire driver business permit caps and insurance oversight powers granted to local regulators by the State of Florida in 1988 to circumvent FTC antitrust laws and the recently adopted rideshare/TNC legislation that collectively blocks free market unrestrained trade and negates the right to INDUSTRY guaranteed in the Constitution of the State of Florida for owners and driver operators of motor vehicles in service to transport riders for compensation.

If our claim is denied by your office and the State of Florida we expect to prevail in a Declaratory Judgement filing including a request for damages in our prayer for relief.

If our claim is denied we also expect to prevail in proving in a court of law that elected officials such as Brandes, Gaetz, and Young acted as business managers for Uber, Lyft, PCIAA, and all Florida personal motor vehicle insurance companies
instead of conducting themselves as lawmakers we trust to create legislation FOR WE THE PEOPLE while shifting all these stakeholder's financial responsibility and business liability risks to available for hire drivers who use a motor vehicle of any description to transport riders for compensation.

We also expect to prevail in proving in a court of law the failure of the State of Florida to repeal the 1988 code empowering local regulators to regulate business permit caps and control insurance oversight not necessarily corresponding to Florida statutes 324.032(1)(a) and (b) which destroyed the ground transportation industry in the first place created monopolistic opportunities for Uber and Lyft (either with or without knowledge) and resulted in indentured servitude for rideshare drivers hostage to the Uber and Lyft platforms or the very real threat of extinction for taxi and limo drivers.

In our prayer for relief, either negotiated directly with the State of Florida or in a court of law we request the following:

1. The 1988 code empowering local regulators to pass business permit caps for independent driver operators as well as their insurance oversight is repealed.

2) Either local regulators or FLHSMV will be empowered to issue independent operator business permits for any taxi, uber, limo, or lyft driver that wants one.

3) Total repeal of the rideshare TNC bill.

4) Permanent Injunctive Relief on any language used in the State of Florida and on local levels claiming drivers are independent contractors, especially when open litigation on the matter is active in other states.

5) A new TNC bill that only addresses the primary financial responsibility and business liability of platforms such as UBER and Lyft to eliminate the opportunity to risk shift to drivers.

6) Permanent Injunctive Relief on any lobby backed demanding "agnostic" "ambiguous" language included in legislation such as risk shift "either the TNC or the driver"

7) In a pre court filing settlement with the State of Florida financial damages will be capped at the costs for taxi, uber, limo, and lyft drivers or owners to form an insurance captive that will then be funded by owner/policy holders to cover secondary property damage and bodily injury while on duty and primary while off duty and initial costs to purchase re-insurance to support the model.

8) #7 does not negate TNCs or Taxi Limo Companies requirements to provide primary insurance coverage while the driver on their respective platforms is "on duty".

9) The ability of any available for hire driver or vehicle owner to purchase 24/7 livery use accepted motor vehicle insurance under for hire statute 324.032(1)(b) from any personal insurers or specialty commercial brokers that choose to make said coverage available for purchase.

PLEASE be advised we maintain the right to add "prayers for relief."

PLEASE also be advised this communication will be publically posted on social media driver sites to create awareness for available for hire drivers since 2013 who are not already affiliated with The Ride Hail Alliance.

Thankyou for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Best,

Jennifer Condie

Ride Hail Alliance

640 Clematis St WPB Florida 33402







Sent from my MetroPCS 4G LTE Android Device
I drove for Capitol Yellow Cab, in Tallahassee, back in the late 1990's. Yellow used regulations and Department of Consumer Services to banish rival companies.

Did the clerk give you a date yet?
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
And they still do!

I got this email today regarding the 1st notice of pending legal action (the above is the 2nd) I sent to the CFO of Florida regarding a technical issue that adversely impacts ALL available for hire drivers:

Good morning Ms. Condie:


I just wanted to confirm that I referred your claim to the Department of Financial Services, Division of Risk Management for review, as provided in section 768.28(6)(a), Florida Statutes.


Risk Management should contact you directly; however, if you do not hear anything in the next few weeks, please feel free to contact me.


Thank you.


Sincerely,


Tim Vaccaro, Esq.
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #4
I drove for Capitol Yellow Cab, in Tallahassee, back in the late 1990's. Yellow used regulations and Department of Consumer Services to banish rival companies.

Did the clerk give you a date yet?
Florida ordinance requires we give the Chief Financial Officer a heads up before filing a lawsuit against the State. Which I did.

They decide if they will pass or play. If they pass (deny claim) then the door is open to file a lawsuit with the State of Florida named as Defendants along with Uber, Lyft, and the Personal auto insurance industry.

That lawsuit won't be contingency, class action, or cheap. It's going to take a crowd funding action to pull it off. But with the sheer volume of drivers at anytime from 2013-present its just a matter of getting the word out to at least 10,000 drivers who are willing to take action and be named Plantiffs in the lawsuit to get it off the ground.
Working on that now!
 
Top