[PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-10744

____________________

CINDY THAYER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RANDY MARION CHEVROLET BUICK CADILLAC, LLC, 

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 6:19-cv-00784-GAP-LRH

____________________

USCA11 Case: 21-10744 Date Filed: 04/13/2022 Page: 1 of 10
2 Opinion of the Court 21-10744

Before JILL PRYOR, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

ANDERSON, Circuit Judge:

The Graves Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 30106, shields “[a]n 

owner of a motor vehicle that rents or leases the vehicle to a person” from vicarious liability “for harm . . . that results or arises 

out of the use, operation, or possession of the vehicle during the

period of the rental or lease” if two other conditions are met. 

This case requires us to decide whether a vehicle provided by the 

service department of an automobile dealership to a customer 

while that customer’s car was being serviced is a vehicle that the 

service department “rents or leases” to the customer. The district 

court found that it was. After careful review and with the benefit 

of oral argument, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND 

Randy Marion Chevrolet Buick Cadillac, LLC (“Randy 

Marion”) is an automobile dealership in North Carolina that also 

operates a service department. When a customer brings a car to 

Randy Marion for service, Randy Marion allows the customer to 

use a Randy Marion-owned vehicle while the customer’s car is 

being serviced.

Samuel Pope brought Rebecca Lowthorp’s car to Randy 

Marion for service on September 4, 2015, the day before Pope and 

USCA11 Case: 21-10744 Date Filed: 04/13/2022 Page: 2 of 10
21-10744 Opinion of the Court 3

Lowthorp’s wedding.

1

 While the car was being serviced by 

Randy Marion, Randy Marion provided the Popes with a vehicle 

to use. The Popes used that vehicle to go to Florida for their 

honeymoon. On September 13, 2015, the Popes were driving that 

vehicle on Interstate-4 in Florida and collided with Cindy Thayer 

(“Thayer”). 

Thayer brought this lawsuit against Randy Marion for vicarious liability under Florida’s dangerous instrumentality doctrine. Randy Marion moved for summary judgment on its affirmative defenses, including the Graves Amendment. The district 

court granted Randy Marion’s motion for summary judgment on 

the Graves Amendment.

The district court noted that, for the Graves Amendment 

to apply, a defendant must meet the following four elements: (1) 

the defendant owned the vehicle; (2) the defendant was “engaged 

in the trade or business of renting or leasing motor vehicles;” (3) 

the defendant committed “no negligence or criminal wrongdoing”; and (4) the defendant “rent[ed] or lease[d] the vehicle.” 49 

U.S.C. § 30106. Thayer argued to the district court that it was 

disputed whether Randy Marion owned the vehicle, whether 

Randy Marion engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing, and whether Randy Marion rented the vehicle to the Popes. 

The district court found for Randy Marion on all three issues.

1 From her deposition testimony, Rebecca Lowthorp now goes by Rebecca 

Pope. We refer to them collectively as the Popes.

USCA11 Case: 21-10744 Date Filed: 04/13/2022 Page: 3 of 10
4 Opinion of the Court 21-10744

The district court found that Randy Marion presented evidence that it owned the vehicle and that Randy Marion, as an automobile dealership, was engaged in the business of leasing vehicles. The district court found that Thayer failed to provide evidence to create a dispute regarding those issues. Thayer also argued that summary judgment was improper because Randy Marion interchangeably referred to the vehicle as a “rental” and a 

“loaner,” creating a dispute of material fact. The district court 

found that these labels did not foreclose summary judgment because the substance of the transaction, not the labels Randy Marion applied, mattered.

Finally, the district court found that Randy Marion rented 

the vehicle to the Popes. Citing dictionary definitions, the district 

court held that to fall within the Graves Amendment, the Popes’ 

use of the loaner vehicle needed to be supported by consideration. The district court found there was consideration here. The 

district court found that the Popes brought their own vehicle to 

Randy Marion for service and agreed to pay therefor. In exchange, the Popes received the loaner vehicle to use. Therefore, 

the district court concluded that the Graves Amendment protected Randy Marion and granted summary judgment to Randy Marion. This appeal followed.

II. DISCUSSION 

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de 

novo, viewing “all facts and reasonable inferences in the light 

USCA11 Case: 21-10744 Date Filed: 04/13/2022 Page: 4 of 10
21-10744 Opinion of the Court 5

most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Shuford v. Fid. Nat’l 

Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 508 F.3d 1337, 1341 (11th Cir. 2007). 

Thayer only appeals two aspects of the district court’s summary 

judgment order: (1) whether Randy Marion rented or leased the 

vehicle and (2) whether summary judgment was improper because Randy Marion used conflicting labels for the vehicle.

In pertinent part, the Graves Amendment, enacted in 2005,

provides:

(a) In general.—An owner of a motor vehicle that 

rents or leases the vehicle to a person (or an affiliate 

of the owner) shall not be liable under the law of any 

State or political subdivision thereof, by reason of 

being the owner of the vehicle (or an affiliate of the 

owner), for harm to persons or property that results 

or arises out of the use, operation, or possession of 

the vehicle during the period of the rental or lease, 

if—

(1) the owner (or an affiliate of the owner) is 

engaged in the trade or business of renting or 

leasing motor vehicles; and

(2) there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner (or an affiliate 

of the owner).

49 U.S.C. § 30106(a). We have previously held that the Graves 

Amendment, when applicable, preempts Florida’s dangerous instrumentality doctrine. See Garcia v. Vanguard Car Rental USA, 

USCA11 Case: 21-10744 Date Filed: 04/13/2022 Page: 5 of 10
6 Opinion of the Court 21-10744

Inc., 540 F.3d 1242, 1249 (11th Cir. 2008).2 On appeal, Thayer 

makes two arguments for why summary judgment should not 

have been granted to Randy Marion based on the Graves 

Amendment. First, she argues that the vehicle provided to the 

Popes was not rented or leased. Second, she argues that Randy 

Marion’s interchangeable use of the words “rental” and “loaner” 

to refer to the vehicle precludes summary judgment. We address 

each in turn.

“The starting point for all statutory interpretation is the 

language of the statute itself.” United States v. DBB, Inc., 180 F.3d 

1277, 1281 (11th Cir. 1999). “We interpret words that are not defined in a statute ‘with their ordinary and plain meaning because 

we assume that Congress uses words in a statute as they are 

commonly understood.’” United States v. Frank, 599 F.3d 1221, 

1234 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Veal, 153 F.3d 

1233, 1245 (11th Cir. 1998)). Therefore, the important language 

from the Graves Amendment for us to interpret is “[a]n owner of 

a motor vehicle that rents or leases the vehicle.” 49 U.S.C. 

§ 30106. We, then, must determine what it means to rent or lease 

a vehicle.

2 “Florida’s dangerous instrumentality doctrine imposes strict vicarious liability upon the owner of a motor vehicle who voluntarily entrusts that motor 

vehicle to an individual whose negligent operation causes damage to another.” Aurbach v. Gallina, 753 So. 2d 60, 62 (Fla. 2000) (citing S. Cotton Oil Co. 

v. Anderson, 86 So. 629, 637 (Fla. 1920)).

USCA11 Case: 21-10744 Date Filed: 04/13/2022 Page: 6 of 10
21-10744 Opinion of the Court 7

Black’s Law Dictionary defines “rent” as “[c]onsideration 

paid, usu. periodically, for the use or occupancy of property (esp. 

real property).” Rent, Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004).3

 It 

also defines “lease” as “[t]o grant possession and use of (land, 

buildings, rooms, movable property, etc.) to another in return for 

rent or other consideration.” Lease, Black’s Law Dictionary (8th 

ed. 2004). From these definitions, it is clear that to rent or lease a 

vehicle requires an exchange of consideration for the use of the 

vehicle. And Black’s Law Dictionary defines “consideration” as 

“[s]omething (such as an act, a forbearance, or a return promise) 

bargained for and received by a promisor from a promisee; that 

which motivates a person to do something, esp. to engage in a legal act.” Consideration, Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004).

The Popes provided consideration to Randy Marion for the 

use of the vehicle here. The Popes only received the vehicle because they brought their own car in for service. Randy Marion, 

then, received the opportunity to service the Popes’ car and received payment from the Popes for performing that service. 

Randy Marion provided evidence that it only provides vehicles if 

a customer leaves their own vehicle for service. Thus, Randy 

3 That edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, which was current when the 

Graves Amendment was enacted and for several years thereafter, does not 

define “rent” as a verb.

USCA11 Case: 21-10744 Date Filed: 04/13/2022 Page: 7 of 10
8 Opinion of the Court 21-10744

Marion rented or leased the vehicle to the Popes and enjoys the 

protection of the Graves Amendment.4

None of Thayer’s arguments in response alter this conclusion. Thayer argues that a rent or lease requires a set, agreedupon payment of money. But as the definition above shows, consideration is broader than simply the payment of money. And to 

the extent a rent or lease requires agreed-upon consideration, this 

exchange had that. The Popes agreed to bring their own car to 

Randy Marion and pay for the repairs in exchange for the use of a 

vehicle. Thayer also argues that the Popes paid no money specifically for the rental. But Randy Marion suggests it factors the cost 

of providing such vehicles into its service prices. And even if it 

does not, the Popes still provided consideration, as noted above. 

Requiring a customer to pay specifically for the rental car would 

remove from Graves Amendment protection any car rented 

through a vacation package where the customer’s payment for 

the package includes an airline ticket, hotel, and rental car. We 

cannot agree that a rental or lease requires the sort of specific 

payment Thayer argues it does. Similarly, Thayer also suggests 

4 Thayer notes that Randy Marion advertises on its website that it provides 

vehicles to customers while their car is being serviced. While Thayer argues 

this undermines Randy Marion’s argument the vehicle was rented, this fact 

reinforces that Randy Marion provides vehicles in exchange for the opportunity to service the customer’s car and that the provision of a vehicle may 

serve as an inducement for the customer. See Consideration, Black’s Law 

Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) (defining consideration as including “something . . . 

which motivates a person to do something”).

USCA11 Case: 21-10744 Date Filed: 04/13/2022 Page: 8 of 10
21-10744 Opinion of the Court 9

that a periodic payment is necessary for a rental or lease. But 

most rental cars are rented for a one-time payment, meaning that

fact cannot preclude application of the Graves Amendment.

The facts here can be easily distinguished from factpatterns that may fall outside the scope of the Graves Amendment. This is not a situation where a car dealership has provided 

a gratuitous test drive to a potential customer in the hopes that 

the customer will ultimately purchase the car. Nor is this a situation where the Popes had a loaner agreement with Randy Marion 

that expressly provided that the loaner was provided free of 

charge. While we express no opinion on whether the Graves 

Amendment would apply in such situations, suffice it to say we 

make no decision in this case with respect to such situations. Similarly, this appeal presents no occasion for a holding with respect 

to the meaning or scope of the Graves Amendment’s trade or 

business requirement—that “the owner (or an affiliate of the 

owner) [be] engaged in the trade or business of renting or leasing 

motor vehicles”—because Thayer has not challenged on appeal 

the district court’s ruling in that regard. 

Thayer’s second argument—that summary judgment was 

precluded because Randy Marion referred to the vehicle as a 

“rental” and a “loaner”—also fails. Whatever label Randy Marion 

happened to assign to the vehicle here does not control the legal 

determination of whether the Graves Amendment applies. The 

substance of the transaction, not the label used, controls. Here, 

the Popes provided consideration for the use of the vehicle. As a 

USCA11 Case: 21-10744 Date Filed: 04/13/2022 Page: 9 of 10
10 Opinion of the Court 21-10744

result, Randy Marion rented or leased the vehicle to the Popes,

and the Graves Amendment applies, regardless of any labels used.

III. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s 

grant of summary judgment to Randy Marion based on the application of the Graves Amendment.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 21-10744 Date Filed: 04/13/2022 Page: 10 of 10