A recent ruling from the District Court for the District of Columbia addressed a case where a man was arrested while driving a rental car that had been erroneously reported stolen. This decision affects both the plaintiff, Jonathan Fenwick, and the defendant, Free2Move North America, Inc., a car rental company. The court's opinion clarifies the legal standards for negligence claims in such situations.

In this case, Jonathan Fenwick, the plaintiff, rented a vehicle from Free2Move in February 2024. He was later pulled over by police in Baltimore, Maryland, due to the car's inoperable headlamps. Upon checking the vehicle's license plate, officers discovered that it had been reported stolen in July 2023 in Portland, Oregon. Fenwick claims that Free2Move had wrongly reported the car as stolen and failed to correct this information, leading to his arrest and detention. He filed a lawsuit against Free2Move in September 2025, alleging negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

The case reached the District Court after Free2Move filed a motion to dismiss the claims against it, arguing that Fenwick's complaint did not state a valid legal claim. The court's ruling focused on whether Fenwick could proceed with his negligence claim while dismissing the other two claims.

Background

Jonathan Fenwick rented a vehicle from Free2Move in Washington, D.C., and was later arrested while driving that car in Baltimore. The police stopped him because the car's headlamps were not working. After checking the vehicle's registration, they found that it had been reported stolen. Fenwick argued that Free2Move had made an error by reporting the car as stolen and had not informed the authorities that the vehicle was in use by him.

During the police stop, officers conducted a high-risk vehicle stop, ordering Fenwick out of the car at gunpoint. Despite his protests that he was a legitimate renter of the vehicle, he was arrested and charged with unauthorized removal of a motor vehicle. He spent 21 hours in custody before the charges were dropped. Fenwick claimed that this ordeal caused him significant emotional distress and financial loss, prompting him to seek damages from Free2Move.

The Ruling

The court ruled on the motion to dismiss filed by Free2Move, deciding to grant it in part and deny it in part. The judge, Loren L. AliKhan, determined that Fenwick could proceed with his negligence claim but not with his claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress or negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court stated, "Mr. Fenwick has plausibly alleged that Free2Move owes him a duty... to exercise [reasonable] care... to protect them against an unreasonable risk of harm... arising out of the act." This indicates that the court recognized a potential duty of care that Free2Move owed to Fenwick as a customer.

However, the court found that Fenwick's claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress did not meet the required legal standards. The judge noted that the conduct alleged by Fenwick did not rise to the level of being extreme or outrageous, which is necessary to support an IIED claim. The court also stated that Fenwick failed to demonstrate severe emotional distress, which is a requirement for both IIED and NIED claims.

Impact

This ruling is significant because it clarifies the standards for negligence claims in cases involving car rentals and wrongful arrests. It highlights the responsibilities of rental companies in ensuring that vehicles they rent out are not incorrectly reported as stolen. The decision allows Fenwick to pursue his negligence claim, which could lead to a trial where the court will examine the facts and determine if Free2Move acted negligently.

For the car rental industry, this ruling may prompt companies to review their reporting practices and ensure that they have proper protocols in place to avoid similar situations. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how rental companies are held accountable for their actions related to vehicle theft reports.

What's Next

Following the court's decision, Free2Move must file an answer to Fenwick's negligence claim by October 13, 2026. The case may proceed to discovery, where both parties will gather evidence and prepare for a potential trial. It is unclear whether Free2Move will appeal the court's ruling regarding the negligence claim.