KRAVITCH, Circuit Judge:
These consolidated declaratory judgment and wrongful death actions require us to interpret the Graves Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 30106, a federal tort reform statute which purports to shield rental car companies from certain vicarious liability suits. We conclude that the tort claims at
The pertinent facts are undisputed. The appellee rental car companies
Anticipating a suit alleging vicarious liability for Davis' negligence, Vanguard filed a declaratory judgment action in the district court against Lopez and the estates and surviving spouses of Garcia and Ruiz. Jurisdiction was based on diversity. The Vanguard companies sought a declaration that the Graves Amendment preempted any claims against them for wrongful death or bodily injury caused by their lessee Davis. The estates and surviving spouses of Garcia and Ruiz then filed separate wrongful death actions in Florida state court. The state court actions were removed and consolidated with the declaratory judgment action, and the district court dismissed several corporate parties it found were fraudulently joined to defeat diversity jurisdiction. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court issued a thorough and well-written opinion holding that the Graves Amendment validly preempted all the tort claims, and thus, it granted summary judgment for the rental car companies in all three cases. This appeal ensued.
We must first determine whether the Graves Amendment, by its terms, preempts these wrongful death actions. Of course, a valid federal statute preempts any state law with which it actually conflicts. See, e.g., Foley v. Luster, 249 F.3d 1281, 1286 (11th Cir.2001).
These suits were brought against Vanguard, which concededly was not culpable in renting a car to Davis, because of the so-called dangerous instrumentality doctrine. Through that doctrine, Florida common law "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 Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, 80 Fla. 441, 86 So. 629, 637 (1920)). The doctrine applies to commercial motor vehicle lessors such as Vanguard.
In 1999, the Florida legislature imposed statutory caps on the amount of vicarious liability rental car companies could face under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. As pertinent here, the statute provides that
Fla. Stat. § 324.021(9)(b)(2). Thus, the statute explicitly countenances the type of lawsuits at issue here—those imposing strict liability against a rental car company for the negligent acts of its lessee—while imposing a damages cap on them. It also reduces the rental company's liability exposure if a lessee is insured for $500,000 or more.
The Graves Amendment takes aim at precisely these types of lawsuits. The Amendment has two operative provisions, a preemption clause and a savings clause. The preemption clause provides as follows:
49 U.S.C. § 30106(a). The instant wrongful death claims are clearly within the scope of this provision. Vanguard and its affiliates are in the rental car business. Vanguard owned the rental car driven by Davis and leased it to him, and the accident occurred during the lease period. Plaintiffs seek to recover solely under a vicarious liability theory: Vanguard is allegedly liable "by reason of being the owner of the vehicle" negligently driven by Davis, not because of any negligent entrustment or other wrongdoing of its own. Thus, assuming for now that the statute is constitutional, these wrongful death suits are preempted by § 30106(a) unless they are within the statute's savings clause. It provides that
49 U.S.C. § 30106(b). Appellants contend their suits are within the savings clause because Florida's imposition of vicarious liability on rental car companies for the negligence of their lessees is a financial responsibility law. To evaluate this argument, we must review the pertinent law of statutory interpretation.
The Graves Amendment does not define the term "financial responsibility." When statutory terms are undefined, we typically infer that Congress intended them to have their common and ordinary meaning, unless it is apparent from context that the disputed term is a term of art. Konikov v. Orange Cty., Fla., 410 F.3d 1317, 1329 (11th Cir.2005) (citation omitted). When Congress employs a term of art, it presumptively adopts the meaning and "cluster of ideas" that the term has accumulated over time. Medical Transport. Mgmt. Corp. v. Comm'r, Internal
With these interpretive principles in mind, we conclude that Congress used the term "financial responsibility law" to denote state laws which impose insurance-like requirements on owners or operators of motor vehicles, but permit them to carry, in lieu of liability insurance per se, its financial equivalent, such as a bond or self-insurance.
Second, the most common legal usage of the term "financial responsibility" is to refer to state laws which require either liability insurance or a functionally equivalent financial arrangement. Florida law is representative in providing that the owner of a motor vehicle "may prove his or her financial responsibility" by furnishing proof of liability insurance, posting a bond, furnishing a certificate showing a deposit of cash or securities, or furnishing a certificate of self-insurance. Fla. Stat. § 324.031. These other financial arrangements, like insurance, provide "proof of ability to respond in damages on account of crashes arising out the use of a motor vehicle," which is Florida law's definition of "proof of financial responsibility." See Fla. Stat. § 324.021(7). Appellant provides no reason for us to believe Florida
This argument is unpersuasive because it runs afoul of the presumption against surplusage. If we construe the Graves Amendment's savings clause as appellants wish, it would render the preemption clause a nullity. Every vicarious liability suit would be rescued because it could result in a judgment in favor of an accident victim, even though the judgment is premised on the very vicarious liability the Amendment seeks to eliminate. The exception would swallow the rule. We will not choose such an interpretation when another one is feasible. Appellants protest that their reading would not render the preemption clause superfluous because regimes like Fla. Stat. § 324.021(9)(b)(1)-(2), which cap the amount of vicarious liability damages, would be preserved, while uncapped damages would be preempted. In support, they cite statements from the Amendment's legislative history, where its sponsors express concern with "unlimited" vicarious liability. See 151 Cong. Rec. H1034-01 at 1201 (Statement of Rep. Boucher); id. at 1202 (Statement of Rep. Graves). Yet read in context, the statements expressing concern with unlimited vicarious liability do not manifest any approval, explicit or implicit, of limited vicarious liability. More importantly, we see no textual support in the Graves Amendment itself for such a distinction. The distinction Congress drew is between liability based on the companies' own negligence and that of their lessees, not between limited and unlimited vicarious liability.
Appellants also argue that we should construe Florida's vicarious liability regime as a financial responsibility law to serve statutory and public policy goals. They urge that Fla. Stat. § 324.021(9)(b)(2) is a financial responsibility law because it induces car rental companies to ensure that their lessees are adequately insured, thereby serving the purpose of the financial responsibility laws, ensuring compensation for accident victims. The Florida statute achieves this purpose by reducing the companies' liability exposure if their lessees meet the statutory minimum requirements for liability insurance or other financial responsibility. But not every inducement to lease only to the insured thereby becomes a financial responsibility law. As explained above, financial responsibility laws are legal requirements, not mere financial inducements imposed by law. Moreover, the inducement appellants rely upon is again premised upon the very vicarious liability the Graves Amendment seeks to eliminate. This argument, too, fails to convince us that imposition of vicarious liability is within the Amendment's savings clause.
Because the Graves Amendment purports to preempt this lawsuit, we must next determine its constitutionality. Appellants contend the statute cannot be applied to preempt their suits because it is outside Congress's commerce powers.
The commerce power—that is, the combination of the Commerce Clause per se and the Necessary and Proper Clause— encompasses authority to regulate three categories of activities. The first is the use of the "channels" of interstate commerce, the "interstate transportation routes through which persons and goods move." See, e.g., United States v. Ballinger, 395 F.3d 1218, 1225 (11th Cir.2005) (en banc) (citations omitted). It is clear that the Amendment does not directly regulate the channels of commerce nor their use. Neither the rental car market, nor the imposition of vicarious liability on rental car firms, are in any respect a regulation of roads as such. Nor is the Graves Amendment an effort to protect roads from harm, nor to prevent them from being used for harmful purposes. See id. at 1226.
Second, Congress may regulate the so-called "instrumentalities" of commerce. This category includes at a minimum "persons and things themselves moving in interstate commerce." Ballinger, 395 F.3d at 1226. And Ballinger arguably suggests, without explicitly stating, that persons and things moving in interstate commerce is the full extent of the instrumentalities category. But there is also some authority for the proposition that methods of interstate transportation and communication are per se instrumentalities of commerce, regardless of whether the car (or the like) at issue in a particular case has crossed state boundaries or is otherwise engaged in interstate commerce.
But the implications of this argument give us reason to doubt its premise. If cars are always instrumentalities of commerce, as suggested by Bishop, Congress would have plenary power not only over the commercial rental car market, but over many aspects of automobile use. See, e.g., United States v. Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1306, 1311 (11th Cir.2004) (Commerce Clause power is plenary within its scope). Further, because such power would derive from the Commerce Clause per se, Congress could exercise even broader power to make laws necessary and proper to effectuate its plenary power over automobiles including, presumably, regulation of such quintessentially state law matters as traffic rules and licensing drivers, under the banner of protecting the instrumentalities of commerce. We have our doubts about an interpretation which produces these results, which makes us suspect the premise that all methods of transportation and communication are per se instrumentalities of commerce even when they are not used in interstate commerce. Moreover, there is sensible authority that channels and instrumentalities of commerce refer only to "the ingredients of interstate commerce itself." Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 34, 125 S.Ct. 2195, 162 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005) (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment) (citing Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 189-90, 6 L.Ed. 23 (1824)); see also Bishop, 66 F.3d at 597-600 (Becker, J., dissenting) (automobiles can be used as instrumentalities of commerce, but are not per se instrumentalities subject to plenary federal regulation).
Congress has very broad power to regulate wholly intrastate uses of the means of interstate transportation and communication. But it appears more likely that such authority derives not from their status as instrumentalities, but from the Necessary and Proper Clause.
The final and most hotly contested facet of the commerce power is the authority to regulate purely intrastate activities when they "substantially affect" or have a "substantial relation to" interstate commerce. Ballinger, 395 F.3d at 1226 (citations omitted). "When economic activity
Yet the Supreme Court has made clear that aggregation analysis is not always appropriate. In the seminal cases of United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 120 S.Ct. 1740, 146 L.Ed.2d 658 (2000) and United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995), the Supreme Court refused to validate the Violence Against Women Act and the Gun-Free School Zones Act, respectively, because of the purported aggregate effects of gender-motivated violence and school violence on interstate commerce. Rather, in considering the permissibility of those statutes under the commerce power, the Court focused on four "significant considerations": (i) whether the activity regulated was economic in nature, (ii) whether the statute contained jurisdictionally limiting language, (iii) whether Congress made findings concerning the effect of the regulated activity on commerce, and (iv) whether the connection between the regulated activity and an effect on commerce is attenuated. Morrison, 529 U.S. at 609-17, 120 S.Ct. 1740 (citations omitted). The upshot of Morrison and Lopez is that Congress may not "regulate noneconomic, violent criminal conduct based solely on that conduct's aggregate effect on interstate commerce." Id. at 617, 115 S.Ct. 1624. In practice, review under the "significant considerations" of Lopez and Morrison is significantly less deferential than under aggregation analysis. Under the latter, Congress need only have a rational basis for concluding that the regulated activities, in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce. Raich, 545 U.S. at 22, 125 S.Ct. 2195 (citations omitted).
Appellants argue that the test elaborated in Morrison and Lopez, rather than that in Raich, should be applied when, as here, we analyze a single subject statute rather than a comprehensive regulatory regime. They rely chiefly on United States v. Maxwell, 446 F.3d 1210, 1214 (11th Cir.2006), where we stated that the salient difference between Lopez and Raich was "the comprehensiveness of the economic component of the regulation." (We also noted the possibility for analytic confusion after Morrison and Raich. Id. at 1216 n. 6). Appellants urge that analysis under the Morrison/Lopez factors is appropriate because the Graves Amendment, like the statute at issue in those cases, is a "brief, single-subject statute," with no statutory element requiring proof that particular instances of vicarious liability "have any connection to past interstate activity or a predictable impact on future commercial activity." See Raich, 545 U.S. at 23, 125 S.Ct. 2195.
Despite its brevity, we believe the Graves Amendment is properly analyzed under the aggregation doctrine of Raich,
Appellants protest that the Graves Amendment does not regulate the rental car market at all, but state tort law. This is a distinction without a difference, as the state tort law preempted by the statute regulates the rental car market; in other words, the effect of the statute is to deregulate the rental car market. And it has long been understood that the commerce power includes not only the ability to regulate interstate markets, but the ability to facilitate interstate commerce by removing intrastate burdens and obstructions to it. See, e.g., NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 31-32, 57 S.Ct. 615, 81 L.Ed. 893 (1937). On this theory, the Graves Amendment protects the rental car market by deregulating it, eliminating state-imposed laws and lawsuits Congress reasonably believed to be a burden on an economic activity with substantial effects on commerce. Such a theory is relatively novel, but only because statutes like the Graves Amendment are novel. Many federal statutes expressly or impliedly preempt state tort law as an incident to federal regulation. But we are aware of only one other statute with the sole effect and purpose of preempting state-law claims because Congress believed them to be a burden on an interstate market. That is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903, which preempts certain tort suits against gun manufacturers. Despite the novelty of laws like the Graves Amendment and PLCAA, there is no reason in principle why state laws or lawsuits cannot themselves constitute a burden on interstate commerce.
These principles indicate that the Graves Amendment is valid. It is plain that the rental car market has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. It is also apparent that Congress rationally could have perceived strict vicarious liability for the acts of lessees as a burden on that market.
In sum, the Graves Amendment preempts the tort claims on appeal, and is within the boundaries of Congressional power in so doing. Accordingly, the claims cannot proceed. The district court's judgment is