Preview
Filing # 130261725 E-Filed 07/08/2021 12:19:51 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
HEATHER GRANT,
Plaintiff.
VS. CASE NO- CACE 21-009583 (21)
FRANCISCO GABRIEL VADILLO, DAVID
VADILLO and LYFT, INC.,
Defendants.
i
DEFENDANT, LYFT, INC.'S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO
PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Defendant, Lyft, Inc. ("Lyft" or "Defendant"), by and through undersigned counsel and
pursuantto Florida Rule of Civil Procedure, serves its Answer, AffirmativeDefenses, and Demand
for Jury Trial in response to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, and states as follows:
1. Lyft admits the allegations in Paragraph 1 to the extent that, by this action, Plaintiff
is seeking damages in excess of the minimal jurisdictional limits of this Court; however, Lyft
denies that it is in any way liable to Plaintiff for the alleged incident or any o f Plaintiff's damages
and demands strict proof thereofat time of trial.
2. Lyft is without sufficient information or knowledge either to admit or deny the
allegations contained in Paragraph 2; therefore, the allegations are hereby denied and Lyft
demands strict proof thereofat time of trial.
3. Upon informationand belief, Lyft admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 3.
4. Lyft is without sufficient information or knowledge either to admit or deny the
allegations contained in Paragraph 4; therefore, the allegations are hereby denied and Lyft
demands strict proof thereofat time of trial.
***
FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 07/08/2021 12:19:51 PM.****
CASE NO.: CACE-21-009583
5. Lyft admits that Lyft, Inc. is a Delaware for-profit corporation and is authorized to
conduct business in the State of Florida, including in Broward County. Lyft denies any remaining
allegations contained in Paragraph 5 and demands strict proof thereof at time of trial.
6. Lyft denies the allegations in Paragraph 6 and demands strict proof thereof at time
oftrial. By way of further response, Lyft did not hire, employ, or control Defendant FRANCISCO
GABRIEL VADILLO. Rather, at the time of the alleged incident, Defendant FRANCISCO
GABRIEL VADILLO was an
independent contractor who used the Lyft application, website and
technology platform (collectively, the "platform" or "Lyft platform") to connect with other
platform users looking for a ride pursuant to Lyft's Terms of Service.
7. Upon informationand belief, Lyft admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 7.
8. Upon informationand belief, Lyft admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 8.
9. Upon informationand belief, Lyft admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 9.
10. Lyft admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 for venue purposes only. For
all other purposes, Lyft denies any remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 10 and demands
strict proo f thereof at time o f trial.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
11. Upon information and belief, Lyft admits that Plaintiff and Defendant
ird
FRANCISCO GABRIEL VADILLO were involved in a motor vehicle accident on or near NE Y
Avenue and Broward Boulevard in Broward County, Florida on
May 3, 2019. Lyft is without
sufficient informationor knowledge either to admit or deny the remainingallegations contained in
Paragraph 11; therefore, those allegations are hereby denied and Lyft demands strict proofthereof
at time o f trial.
COUNT I: NEGLIGENCE AS TO DEFENDANT, FRANCISCO GABRIEL VADILLO
2
CASE NO.: CACE-21-009583
12. -
15. Paragraphs 12-15 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and the allegations therein
are not directed at Lyft, and no response by Lyft is required. To the extent that the allegations in
Paragraphs 12-15 can be construed to assert liability against Lyft, Lyft denies those allegations in
their entirety and demands strict proof thereof at time of trial.
COUNT II: VICARIOUS LIABILITY AS TO LYFT, INC.
16. Lyft realleges,adopts, and incorporatesby reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 -
11 as if fully set forth herein.
17. Lyft denies the allegations in Paragraph 17 and demands strict proofthereof at time
oftrial. By way of further response, Lyft did not hire, employ, or control Defendant FRANCISCO
GABRIEL VADILLO. Rather, at the time of the alleged incident, Defendant FRANCISCO
GABRIEL VADILLO was an independent contractor who used the Lyft platform to connect with
other platform users looking for a ride pursuant to Lyft's Terms of Service.
18. Lyft denies the allegations in Paragraph 18 and demands strict proofthereof at time
oftrial. By way of further response, Lyft did not hire, employ, or control Defendant FRANCISCO
GABRIEL VADILLO. Rather, at the time of the alleged incident, Defendant FRANCISCO
GABRIEL VADILLO was an independent contractor who used the Lyft platform to connect with
other platform users looking for a ride pursuant to Lyft's Terms of Service.
19. Lyft denies the allegations in Paragraph 19 and demands strict proofthereof at time
oftrial. By way of further response, Lyft did not hire, employ, or control Defendant FRANCISCO
GABRIEL VADILLO. Rather, at the time of the alleged incident, Defendant FRANCISCO
GABRIEL VADILLO was an independent contractor who used the Lyft platform to connect with
other platform users looking for a ride pursuant to Lyft's Terms of Service.
3
CASE NO.: CACE-21-009583
20. The allegations in Paragraph 20 consist of a legal conclusion to which no response
is required.
21. Lyft is without sufficient information or knowledge either to admit or deny the
allegations contained in Paragraph 21; therefore, the allegations are hereby denied and Lyft
demands strict proof thereofat time of trial.
22. The allegations in Paragraph 22 consist of a legal conclusion to which no response
is required.
23. Lyft lacks sufficient knowledge or informationsufficientto form a belief as to any
damages or losses allegedly sustained by Plaintiff from the subject incident; therefore, those
allegations contained in Paragraph 23 are denied and strict proo f thereof is demanded at trial. Lyft
specifically denies any liability to Plaintiff on behalf of Defendant FRANCISCO GABRIEL
VADILLO because Lyft did not hire, control, or employ Defendant FRANCISCO GABRIEL
VADILLO. Rather, at the time of the alleged incident, Defendant FRANCISCO GABRIEL
VADILLO was an independent contractor who used the Lyft platform to connect with other
platform users looking for a ride pursuant to Lyft's Terms of Service.
COUNT III: VICARIOUS LIABILITY AS TO DEFENDANT DAVID VADILLO
24. -
29. Paragraphs 24-29 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and the allegations therein
are not directed at Lyft, and no response by Lyft is required. To the extent that the allegations in
Paragraphs 24-29 can be construed to assert liability against Lyft, Lyft denies those allegations in
their entirety and demands strict proof thereof at time of trial.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
4
CASE NO.: CACE-21-009583
Lyft has not yet had an opportunity to complete discovery in this matter, and therefore
relies upon the following affirmative and other defenses which may prove applicable after
discovery or at trial:
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to State a Cause of Action)
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and each cause of action contained therein fails to state
facts sufficientto constitute a cause of action against Lyft.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Uncertaintv)
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and each and every purported Cause of Action therein are
uncertain.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to Mitigate)
Plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages, if any, and her failure to mitigate has proximately
caused or contributed to the matters complained ofand the damages alleged in Plaintiff'sAmended
Complaint, if any. Therefore, the amount of damages that Plaintiffis entitled to, if any, should be
reduced by the amount of damages that would have otherwise been mitigated.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Avoidable Consequences)
Plaintiff failed to take reasonable steps to avoid the damages, if any, alleged in Plaintiff' s
Amended Complaint, and each and every alleged cause of action contained therein. To the extent
that such damages, if any, were incurred, Plaintiff's recovery, if any, should be reduced
accordingly.
5
CASE NO.: CACE-21-009583
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Negligence or Other Acts of Others)
The injuries and damages alleged by Plaintiff, if any, were proximately caused by the
negligence, recklessness, and intentional conduct of other persons and/or entities, and thus, Lyft is
entitled to an allocation of such negligent, reckless and intentional conduct amongst them, conduct
which Lyft denies, and these other persons and/or entities. See Florida Statutes § 768.81 andFabre
v. Marin, 623 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1993). Thus, if any liability is found againstLyft,judgment should
be assessed against Lyft only to the extent that it representsthe proportionate percentage by which
Lyft's acts and/or omissions contributed to Plaintiff's injuries, if any.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Unavoidable Consequences)
The incident described in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, and all resulting damage and
injury, if any, were the result of unavoidable consequences as far as Lyft is concerned.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Cause in Fact)
Plaintiff cannot prove any facts showing that the conduct of Lyft was the cause in fact of
any alleged injuries or damages suffered by Plaintiff as alleged in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Proximate Cause)
Plaintiff cannot prove any facts showing that the conduct of Lyft was the proximate cause
of any injuries or damages as alleged in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Treatment and Bills)
6
CASE NO.: CACE-21-009583
Plaintiff's alleged treatment and/or medical bills were not necessary, customary,
reasonable, or related to the incident alleged in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Collateral Sources)
Lyft is entitled to set-offs available under the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act,
including all PIP medical expenses and other benefits encompassedby Florida Statutes §§ 627.736
and 627.737. Further, Lyft is entitled to a setoff from any collateral source benefits of all sums of
money received byjudgment, settlement, or otherwise by Plaintiff from any party or non-party to
this action for the injuries and/or damages allegedly sustained as a result of the incident described
in Plaintiff' s Amended Complaint.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Payment Provisions)
In the event a jury awards future economic losses to Plaintiff in excess of $250,000.00,
Lyft is entitled to use the payment provisions in Florida Statutes § 768.78.
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Pre-Existing Iniuries/Medical Conditions)
Lyft affirmatively states that Plaintiff is barred from recovery against Lyft because
Plaintiff's alleged injuries and/or damages, if any, were the result of pre-existing injuries and/or
conditions.
7
CASE NO.: CACE-21-009583
THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to Use Due Care)
Lyft affirmatively states that the Plaintiff failed to use due care. Consequently, Plaintiffis
either barred from recovery or any recovery must be appropriately reduced.
FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Florida TNC Law)
Lyft specifically pleads all defenses available to it pursuant to Florida's Transportation
Network Companies (TNC) law. See Florida Statutes Section 627.748.
FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Seatbelt Defense)
Plaintiff's failure to wear an available and operational seat belt may have caused and/or
contributed to the injuries complained of, thus barring or reducing proportionally all claims against
Defendant.
SEVENTEENTHAFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Reservation of AdditionalAffirmativeDefense)
Lyft presently has insufficientknowledge or informationupon which to form a belief as to
whether it may have additional, as yet unknown, Affirmative Defenses. Lyft reserves herein the
right to assert additional Affirmative Defenses in the event discovery indicates it would be
appropriate.
GENERAL DENIAL AND NON-WAIVER
Each and every allegation in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint not specifically admitted is
denied and the failure to deny a specific allegation, or assert a specific defense, shall not be deemed
to be an admission of an allegation, or a waiver of a defense.
8
CASE NO.: CACE-21-009583
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Lyft hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
9
CASE NO.: CACE-21-009583
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was served by e-Filing with the
)th
Clerk of Court and via Florida e-Filing Portal to the following, this 8? day of July, 2021.
Jon a.
Zepnick George L. Fernandez
Ansel & Miller, LLC Jamie C. Campos
1939 Tyler Street Quintairdos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A.
Hollywood, Florida 33020 9300 South Dadeland Boulevard, 4th Floor
TEL: 954-922-9100 Miami, Florida 33156
com Tel.: 305-670-1101
Fax: 305-670-1161
com
jcampos@QPWBLAW.com
(Counsel for Plaintiff)
(Counsel for David Vadillo and Francisco
Gabriel Vadillo)
si Loren M. Korkin
DOUGLAS EDE
Florida Bar No.: 764787
E-mail: dede@rumberger.corn (primary)
com and
dedesecy@rumberger.com (secondary)
LOREN M. KORKIN
Florida Bar No.. 1010531
E-mail: (primary)
com and
com (secondary)
RUMBERGER, KIRK & CALDWELL, P.A.
Brickell City Tower, Suite 3000
80 Southwest 8th Street
Miami, Florida 33130-3037
Tel: 305.358.5577
Fax: 305.371.7580
(Counsel for Lyft, Inc.)
10
15310108.v2
Preview
Filing # 130261725 E-Filed 07/08/2021 12:19:51 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA HEATHER GRANT, Plaintiff. VS. CASE NO- CACE 21-009583 (21) FRANCISCO GABRIEL VADILLO, DAVID VADILLO and LYFT, INC., Defendants. i DEFENDANT, LYFT, INC.'S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Defendant, Lyft, Inc. ("Lyft" or "Defendant"), by and through undersigned counsel and pursuantto Florida Rule of Civil Procedure, serves its Answer, AffirmativeDefenses, and Demand for Jury Trial in response to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, and states as follows: 1. Lyft admits the allegations in Paragraph 1 to the extent that, by this action, Plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of the minimal jurisdictional limits of this Court; however, Lyft denies that it is in any way liable to Plaintiff for the alleged incident or any o f Plaintiff's damages and demands strict proof thereofat time of trial. 2. Lyft is without sufficient information or knowledge either to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 2; therefore, the allegations are hereby denied and Lyft demands strict proof thereofat time of trial. 3. Upon informationand belief, Lyft admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 3. 4. Lyft is without sufficient information or knowledge either to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 4; therefore, the allegations are hereby denied and Lyft demands strict proof thereofat time of trial. *** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL BRENDA D. FORMAN, CLERK 07/08/2021 12:19:51 PM.**** CASE NO.: CACE-21-009583 5. Lyft admits that Lyft, Inc. is a Delaware for-profit corporation and is authorized to conduct business in the State of Florida, including in Broward County. Lyft denies any remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 5 and demands strict proof thereof at time of trial. 6. Lyft denies the allegations in Paragraph 6 and demands strict proof thereof at time oftrial. By way of further response, Lyft did not hire, employ, or control Defendant FRANCISCO GABRIEL VADILLO. Rather, at the time of the alleged incident, Defendant FRANCISCO GABRIEL VADILLO was an independent contractor who used the Lyft application, website and technology platform (collectively, the "platform" or "Lyft platform") to connect with other platform users looking for a ride pursuant to Lyft's Terms of Service. 7. Upon informationand belief, Lyft admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 7. 8. Upon informationand belief, Lyft admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 8. 9. Upon informationand belief, Lyft admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 9. 10. Lyft admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 for venue purposes only. For all other purposes, Lyft denies any remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 10 and demands strict proo f thereof at time o f trial. FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 11. Upon information and belief, Lyft admits that Plaintiff and Defendant ird FRANCISCO GABRIEL VADILLO were involved in a motor vehicle accident on or near NE Y Avenue and Broward Boulevard in Broward County, Florida on May 3, 2019. Lyft is without sufficient informationor knowledge either to admit or deny the remainingallegations contained in Paragraph 11; therefore, those allegations are hereby denied and Lyft demands strict proofthereof at time o f trial. COUNT I: NEGLIGENCE AS TO DEFENDANT, FRANCISCO GABRIEL VADILLO 2 CASE NO.: CACE-21-009583 12. - 15. Paragraphs 12-15 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and the allegations therein are not directed at Lyft, and no response by Lyft is required. To the extent that the allegations in Paragraphs 12-15 can be construed to assert liability against Lyft, Lyft denies those allegations in their entirety and demands strict proof thereof at time of trial. COUNT II: VICARIOUS LIABILITY AS TO LYFT, INC. 16. Lyft realleges,adopts, and incorporatesby reference its responses to Paragraphs 1 - 11 as if fully set forth herein. 17. Lyft denies the allegations in Paragraph 17 and demands strict proofthereof at time oftrial. By way of further response, Lyft did not hire, employ, or control Defendant FRANCISCO GABRIEL VADILLO. Rather, at the time of the alleged incident, Defendant FRANCISCO GABRIEL VADILLO was an independent contractor who used the Lyft platform to connect with other platform users looking for a ride pursuant to Lyft's Terms of Service. 18. Lyft denies the allegations in Paragraph 18 and demands strict proofthereof at time oftrial. By way of further response, Lyft did not hire, employ, or control Defendant FRANCISCO GABRIEL VADILLO. Rather, at the time of the alleged incident, Defendant FRANCISCO GABRIEL VADILLO was an independent contractor who used the Lyft platform to connect with other platform users looking for a ride pursuant to Lyft's Terms of Service. 19. Lyft denies the allegations in Paragraph 19 and demands strict proofthereof at time oftrial. By way of further response, Lyft did not hire, employ, or control Defendant FRANCISCO GABRIEL VADILLO. Rather, at the time of the alleged incident, Defendant FRANCISCO GABRIEL VADILLO was an independent contractor who used the Lyft platform to connect with other platform users looking for a ride pursuant to Lyft's Terms of Service. 3 CASE NO.: CACE-21-009583 20. The allegations in Paragraph 20 consist of a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 21. Lyft is without sufficient information or knowledge either to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 21; therefore, the allegations are hereby denied and Lyft demands strict proof thereofat time of trial. 22. The allegations in Paragraph 22 consist of a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 23. Lyft lacks sufficient knowledge or informationsufficientto form a belief as to any damages or losses allegedly sustained by Plaintiff from the subject incident; therefore, those allegations contained in Paragraph 23 are denied and strict proo f thereof is demanded at trial. Lyft specifically denies any liability to Plaintiff on behalf of Defendant FRANCISCO GABRIEL VADILLO because Lyft did not hire, control, or employ Defendant FRANCISCO GABRIEL VADILLO. Rather, at the time of the alleged incident, Defendant FRANCISCO GABRIEL VADILLO was an independent contractor who used the Lyft platform to connect with other platform users looking for a ride pursuant to Lyft's Terms of Service. COUNT III: VICARIOUS LIABILITY AS TO DEFENDANT DAVID VADILLO 24. - 29. Paragraphs 24-29 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and the allegations therein are not directed at Lyft, and no response by Lyft is required. To the extent that the allegations in Paragraphs 24-29 can be construed to assert liability against Lyft, Lyft denies those allegations in their entirety and demands strict proof thereof at time of trial. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 4 CASE NO.: CACE-21-009583 Lyft has not yet had an opportunity to complete discovery in this matter, and therefore relies upon the following affirmative and other defenses which may prove applicable after discovery or at trial: FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to State a Cause of Action) Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and each cause of action contained therein fails to state facts sufficientto constitute a cause of action against Lyft. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Uncertaintv) Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and each and every purported Cause of Action therein are uncertain. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Mitigate) Plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages, if any, and her failure to mitigate has proximately caused or contributed to the matters complained ofand the damages alleged in Plaintiff'sAmended Complaint, if any. Therefore, the amount of damages that Plaintiffis entitled to, if any, should be reduced by the amount of damages that would have otherwise been mitigated. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Avoidable Consequences) Plaintiff failed to take reasonable steps to avoid the damages, if any, alleged in Plaintiff' s Amended Complaint, and each and every alleged cause of action contained therein. To the extent that such damages, if any, were incurred, Plaintiff's recovery, if any, should be reduced accordingly. 5 CASE NO.: CACE-21-009583 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Negligence or Other Acts of Others) The injuries and damages alleged by Plaintiff, if any, were proximately caused by the negligence, recklessness, and intentional conduct of other persons and/or entities, and thus, Lyft is entitled to an allocation of such negligent, reckless and intentional conduct amongst them, conduct which Lyft denies, and these other persons and/or entities. See Florida Statutes § 768.81 andFabre v. Marin, 623 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1993). Thus, if any liability is found againstLyft,judgment should be assessed against Lyft only to the extent that it representsthe proportionate percentage by which Lyft's acts and/or omissions contributed to Plaintiff's injuries, if any. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unavoidable Consequences) The incident described in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, and all resulting damage and injury, if any, were the result of unavoidable consequences as far as Lyft is concerned. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Cause in Fact) Plaintiff cannot prove any facts showing that the conduct of Lyft was the cause in fact of any alleged injuries or damages suffered by Plaintiff as alleged in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Proximate Cause) Plaintiff cannot prove any facts showing that the conduct of Lyft was the proximate cause of any injuries or damages as alleged in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Treatment and Bills) 6 CASE NO.: CACE-21-009583 Plaintiff's alleged treatment and/or medical bills were not necessary, customary, reasonable, or related to the incident alleged in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Collateral Sources) Lyft is entitled to set-offs available under the Florida Automobile Reparations Reform Act, including all PIP medical expenses and other benefits encompassedby Florida Statutes §§ 627.736 and 627.737. Further, Lyft is entitled to a setoff from any collateral source benefits of all sums of money received byjudgment, settlement, or otherwise by Plaintiff from any party or non-party to this action for the injuries and/or damages allegedly sustained as a result of the incident described in Plaintiff' s Amended Complaint. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Payment Provisions) In the event a jury awards future economic losses to Plaintiff in excess of $250,000.00, Lyft is entitled to use the payment provisions in Florida Statutes § 768.78. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Pre-Existing Iniuries/Medical Conditions) Lyft affirmatively states that Plaintiff is barred from recovery against Lyft because Plaintiff's alleged injuries and/or damages, if any, were the result of pre-existing injuries and/or conditions. 7 CASE NO.: CACE-21-009583 THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Use Due Care) Lyft affirmatively states that the Plaintiff failed to use due care. Consequently, Plaintiffis either barred from recovery or any recovery must be appropriately reduced. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Florida TNC Law) Lyft specifically pleads all defenses available to it pursuant to Florida's Transportation Network Companies (TNC) law. See Florida Statutes Section 627.748. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Seatbelt Defense) Plaintiff's failure to wear an available and operational seat belt may have caused and/or contributed to the injuries complained of, thus barring or reducing proportionally all claims against Defendant. SEVENTEENTHAFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Reservation of AdditionalAffirmativeDefense) Lyft presently has insufficientknowledge or informationupon which to form a belief as to whether it may have additional, as yet unknown, Affirmative Defenses. Lyft reserves herein the right to assert additional Affirmative Defenses in the event discovery indicates it would be appropriate. GENERAL DENIAL AND NON-WAIVER Each and every allegation in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint not specifically admitted is denied and the failure to deny a specific allegation, or assert a specific defense, shall not be deemed to be an admission of an allegation, or a waiver of a defense. 8 CASE NO.: CACE-21-009583 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Lyft hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. 9 CASE NO.: CACE-21-009583 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was served by e-Filing with the )th Clerk of Court and via Florida e-Filing Portal to the following, this 8? day of July, 2021. Jon a. Zepnick George L. Fernandez Ansel & Miller, LLC Jamie C. Campos 1939 Tyler Street Quintairdos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A. Hollywood, Florida 33020 9300 South Dadeland Boulevard, 4th Floor TEL: 954-922-9100 Miami, Florida 33156 com Tel.: 305-670-1101 Fax: 305-670-1161 com jcampos@QPWBLAW.com (Counsel for Plaintiff) (Counsel for David Vadillo and Francisco Gabriel Vadillo) si Loren M. Korkin DOUGLAS EDE Florida Bar No.: 764787 E-mail: dede@rumberger.corn (primary) com and dedesecy@rumberger.com (secondary) LOREN M. KORKIN Florida Bar No.. 1010531 E-mail: (primary) com and com (secondary) RUMBERGER, KIRK & CALDWELL, P.A. Brickell City Tower, Suite 3000 80 Southwest 8th Street Miami, Florida 33130-3037 Tel: 305.358.5577 Fax: 305.371.7580 (Counsel for Lyft, Inc.) 10 15310108.v2