Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Legislation filed in the Indiana General Assembly would prohibit future civil lawsuits against ride-hailing companies, such as Uber and Lyft, for crimes or other misconduct committed by their drivers against passengers.
House Bill 1417, authored by Rep. Matt Lehman, R-Berne, would prohibit individuals from suing transportation network companies for damages caused by a driver or arising from a ride arranged through the platform. The provision is part of a broader tort reform package aimed at limiting liability exposure for all businesses and curbing certain types of civil claims.
If enacted, the measure would prevent future cases similar to the civil action now pending in Marion Superior Court against Uber following the 2024 murder of Indianapolis resident Chanti Dixon by an Uber driver who was also accused of sexually assaulting the woman.
San Francisco-based Uber did not directly respond to questions about whether it considered the legislation a response to the civil lawsuit stemming from the Indianapolis woman’s death. Plaintiffs in the case argue Uber was negligent in the hiring and training of Francisco Valadez, a former driver who was convicted of fatally shooting Dixon in 2024. He also confessed to attempting to rape the 30-year-old woman, court records show.
In a written statement to The Indiana Lawyer, an Uber spokesperson did say the inclusion of “vicarious liability reform” in the bill is a “direct response to the increasing use of ‘deep pocket’ litigation strategies that raise prices for Hoosiers and threaten Indiana’s economic stability.”
“HB 1417 helps address this systemic abuse and is a key part of the broader tort package focused on combating the ‘hidden tax’ of lawsuit abuse,” the spokesperson added.
Uber says vicarious liability has been “weaponized” by plaintiffs’ attorneys to hold corporations responsible for the actions of independent contractors.
Bob Johnson, president of the Indiana Trial Lawyers Association, called that reasoning “a stretch.”
“It’s just a little bit of, what I would call, trying to force a narrative, kind of that solution looking for a problem,” Johnson said. “…They don’t need immunity. Everything’s working fine the way it is.”
Uber has been under scrutiny for the sexual misconduct reports its riders have made in recent years.
More than 400,000 Uber trips resulted in reports of sexual assault or sexual misconduct in the U.S. from 2017 to 2022, The New York Times reported last year. Uber told The Times that no level of sexual assault is tolerable and has noted that a vast majority of those reports cited were “less serious” and “non-physical in nature” and did not fall into the category of sexual assault.
Dixon’s encounter with an Uber driver was deadly.
In September 2024, her naked body was found in the 1800 block of Wagner Lane with a gunshot wound to the head.
Last month, Valadez pleaded guilty to murdering her, as part of a plea deal resulting in a 45-year prison sentence.
Detectives said Valadez also admitted to trying to rape Dixon in the back of his car. And while he was attempting to assault her, Valadez said, Dixon insulted him and that caused him to go into a rage and shoot her, according to court records.
He told detectives that he then dragged Dixon out of his car and tried to have sex with her dead body.
Valadez was later arrested by the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department and initially charged with two counts of murder, attempted rape and attempted abuse of a corpse, according to arrest records.
Dixon’s estate is now involved in a civil action against Uber. That lawsuit was filed in May 2025 in Marion County Superior Court.
Uber attempted to have the case dismissed, arguing that Indiana’s transportation network statute establishes Valadez as an independent contractor, thereby exempting Uber from his actions.
The plaintiffs in the case disagreed with Uber’s interpretation of the law, arguing that there is “nothing” in the statute to create a blanket immunity for such companies.
“The statute regulates licensing, insurance, and disclosure obligations—it does not alter Indiana’s long-standing tort principles governing negligence, fraud, or product liability,” a response to the dismissal motion stated.
Marion County Superior Court Judge Gary Miller denied the dismissal, and the case is pending.
Attorneys interviewed by The Indiana Lawyer were divided over whether the legislation could potentially impact the civil lawsuit filed by Dixon’s estate.
Johnson said that if HB 1417 were to take effect before the civil case is wrapped up, it appears Uber would gain complete immunity from the plaintiff’s claims. The legislation, if approved as written, would take effect July 1.
Rep. Ed DeLaney, D-Indianapolis, was less certain about the bill’s effect on pending lawsuits because it contains no retroactive clause. DeLaney opposes the bill, but he said if it is allowed to move forward, he would like to see a provision added that would explicitly allow existing lawsuits to proceed.
Terrance Kinnard, an attorney for Dixon’s estate, declined to comment on the legislation because the civil lawsuit is still ongoing.
Lehman, the bill’s author, did not respond to The Lawyer’s requests for comment.
For critics of the bill, any immunity, especially in Dixon’s case, removes accountability.
“Without accountability, it shifts all the harm that we know is going to happen from corporate actors back to the taxpayers,” Johnson said.
“Our citizens are the ones taking the risk, and shareholders of Uber and Lyft get all the reward,” he added. “I mean, this is to protect the platform and their profits, not the passengers.”
Johnson said his association is strongly opposing the legislation and is prepared to fight it.
Immunity for transportation network companies is just one component of a broader effort for tort reform this session.
The rest of the bill contains business protections that are a priority of the new Indiana Alliance for Legal Reform, which includes the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, Indiana Manufacturers Association, National Federation of Independent Business, Indiana Motor Truck Association and Indiana Bankers Association.
The measure would provide businesses with more protection from public nuisance claims and third-party criminal acts and places a $1 million cap on non-economic damages.
“The goal of all of these different provisions is to provide more certainty, more predictability to business owners,” Adam Berry, the chamber’s vice president of economic development and technology, said in an interview with The Lawyer last week.
Stephen Wolff, the alliance’s executive director, who also serves as the vice president of Corydon Group’s Governmental Affairs and Procurement division, echoed desires to create predictability for businesses.
“If Indiana were to become a place where it’s easy to bring people into these cases where they don’t necessarily have a nexus or a connection, it disincentivizes businesses from wanting to operate here,” Wolff said.
Berry said that over the last decade, he’s seen a tremendous increase in the cost of insurance premiums due to the rise in lawsuits.
By working to place caps on non-economic damages and protecting businesses from frivolous lawsuits, Berry said, HB 1417 would help “reduce the exposure that these businesses have.”
Berry said he is fairly confident the bill will receive a hearing from the House Judiciary Committee, but he expects there will be some refinement in the liability section of the bill before it moves along.
But Judiciary Committee Chair Chris Jeter, R-Fishers, expressed uncertainty about the bill’s future. He said it wouldn’t pass out of committee as it’s currently written.
“I’d like to see it pared down in some places,” he said, without specifying the changes he would like to see.
Indianapolis Business Journal reporter Marek Mazurek contributed to this report.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.