§ 150E.003.Limitation of Liability

The operative protection, and its structure repays reading closely.

Subsection (a): a company may not be held vicariously liable if both of two things are true: the claimant does not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the company was grossly negligent; and the company has fulfilled all of its obligations with respect to the driver under the Occupations Code chapter governing these companies.

Both conditions must hold for the bar to apply, so a company that failed its regulatory obligations loses the protection whatever the standard of proof — which ties the immunity directly to compliance with the background check, driving record, and insurance requirements of that chapter.

The standard is doubly demanding. Gross negligence rather than negligence, and clear and convincing evidence rather than the preponderance standard — which is the criminal-adjacent standard the code reserves for exemplary damages.

Subsection (b) preserves direct liability, and it is not a small carve-out. The bar does not affect liability arising out of the company’s own negligence or gross negligence for an act or omission relating to use of its digital network.

The section then names the paradigm case: failure to prevent a driver from logging on where the company had actual knowledge that the driver was disqualified for a reason arising after the most recent review of their driving record or criminal background check.

That is a carefully bounded duty. It is not a duty to discover disqualifying facts between checks — it attaches only where the company in fact knew.

So the chapter separates two claims that plaintiffs plead together: the company answers for its own conduct on ordinary principles, and answers for the driver’s only on gross negligence proved to a heightened standard.