Jurisdiction: Florida Sixth District Court of Appeal
Case No.: 6D2025-1405
Lower Tribunal Case No.: 2024-CA-000083
Date: January 30, 2026
Lower Court: Circuit Court for Polk County, Judge Reinaldo Ojeda

Case Corner – Turo v. Mobley

Punitive Damages Gatekeeping, “Actual Knowledge,” and Why Constructive Knowledge Wasn’t Enough

This decision is a strong reminder that punitive damages are not automatic—even in tragic cases. The Sixth District reversed an order allowing plaintiffs to amend their complaint to add punitive damages against Turo, finding the plaintiffs did not meet the threshold showing required by section 768.72, Florida Statutes.

What Happened

Plaintiffs rented a vehicle through Turo’s online car-sharing platform. At pickup, the driver noticed the tire pressure warning light was on and messaged the vehicle owner through the Turo app. The owner replied that the light was always on because a sensor didn’t work and the tires were “great.”

Shortly after, a rear tire blew out, the vehicle lost control and rolled multiple times. One passenger died and the others reported injuries.

Plaintiffs sued Turo and the vehicle owner, then sought leave to add punitive damages against Turo, claiming its conduct amounted to:

• Intentional misconduct, or
• Gross negligence

The trial court allowed the amendment. Turo appealed.

The Legal Standard

Florida law requires a plaintiff to clear a gatekeeping step before pleading punitive damages:

• § 768.72(1): A punitive claim may not be pleaded unless there is a reasonable showing by evidence (in the record or proffered) providing a reasonable basis for recovery.

At trial, punitive damages require clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is personally guilty of:

• Intentional misconduct (§ 768.72(2)(a)) — requires actual knowledge of wrongfulness and intentional pursuit of the conduct despite high probability of injury; or
• Gross negligence (§ 768.72(2)(b)) — conduct so reckless or wanting in care it amounts to a conscious disregard or indifference to life/safety/rights.

On appeal, the court reviews the order de novo, viewing the proffer in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, without weighing credibility—but still requiring the proffer to meet the statute’s threshold.

Why the Court Reversed

1) No “reasonable basis” for intentional misconduct

The plaintiffs’ biggest problem: actual knowledge.

They argued Turo should be treated as having knowledge because:

• 55 out of 79 prior rentals had pre-trip photos showing the warning light illuminated, and
• Some renters referenced tire pressure issues in post-trip feedback.

But the evidence showed:

• Turo’s corporate representative testified Turo does not review the pre-trip photos “in its normal course of business.”
• The post-trip feedback that mentioned tire pressure issues did not include reports directed specifically to Turo in a way that established actual notice to Turo.
• The driver messaged the owner, not Turo, through the app.

The court’s bottom line: Plaintiffs did not connect the dots to show Turo actually knew the warning light was on before allowing the vehicle to be shared. Without actual knowledge, intentional misconduct fails at the threshold stage.

2) No “reasonable basis” for gross negligence

Plaintiffs pivoted to gross negligence: even if Turo didn’t actually know, Turo arguably had constructive knowledge because warning-light photos existed and structured reviews flagged tire pressure.

But the Sixth District held that constructive knowledge + failure to restrict the vehicle did not reasonably show the extreme level of recklessness required for gross negligence—i.e., a conscious disregard for safety.

The opinion emphasized that gross negligence is a high bar, and compared the facts to other Florida cases where punitive damages were rejected even with serious safety failures and prior warnings. The court treated this case as falling on the “not enough for punitive” side of that line.

Key Takeaways

1. Section 768.72 is real gatekeeping. Courts must stop punitive claims unless the evidence clears a meaningful threshold—not mere suspicion or “they should’ve known.”
2. Intentional misconduct requires actual knowledge. A platform’s policies and “ability to restrict” are not enough if the proof doesn’t show the company knew the danger existed and proceeded anyway.
3. Gross negligence is more than bad systems or missed signals. Even if a company’s process is weak (not reviewing photos, limited review of inspections, no algorithm to detect maintenance red flags), that still may fall short of the “conscious disregard” standard.
4. Structured reviews and internal “datapoints” aren’t automatic notice. If the evidence doesn’t show the company’s system actually flags or routes those datapoints to decision-makers, it may not support punitive damages.
5. Tragedy doesn’t change the legal burden. The injury severity is not a substitute for the statutory showing of intentional misconduct or gross negligence.

Practical Impact

For future cases against gig-economy or platform-based companies (car sharing, delivery platforms, rentals), this opinion arms defendants with a powerful argument:

• If your proof is “they could have known if they reviewed X,” you may have negligence, but not punitive damages—at least at the pleading stage.

Today’s Insight

“The law has reason, free from passion.”
— Aristotle