TALLAHASSEE — The Florida Supreme Court declined to extend consumer protection law remedies to insurance companies, concluding that GEICO cannot pursue claims under the Florida Motor Vehicle Repair Act against a windshield repair company.
In a decision authored by Chief Justice Carlos G. Muñiz, the Florida Supreme Court addressed two questions posed by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals concerning the interpretation of the Florida Motor Vehicle Repair Act.
The act, established to protect consumers in auto repair transactions, mandates repair shops to provide pre- and post-work disclosures to customers.
The central issue in the case involved GEICO's efforts to use alleged violations of these requirements by Glassco, a windshield repair business, to justify nonpayment and reclaim previously paid insurance claims.
GEICO argued that Glassco, which often conducted windshield repairs for GEICO’s insured customers, failed to comply with several statutory disclosure mandates, including providing written estimates.
GEICO asserted that these violations should render Glassco’s invoices void and give the insurer a right to reimbursement.
However, the Florida Supreme Court unanimously ruled that GEICO, as an insurer, is not covered under the statutory definition of a "customer" and thus lacks the legal standing to bring a private action under the Act.
In its ruling, the court emphasized that the Repair Act defines a "customer" as the individual who requests the repair work and signs off on any related authorization documents.
GEICO, acting as an insurance payer rather than a repair-requesting individual, does not meet this definition, barring it from pursuing claims or voiding invoices under the statute.
Furthermore, the court rejected GEICO’s policy-based arguments that insurers should be treated as de facto customers to address rising repair costs. Justice Muñiz stated that it is the Legislature’s role — not the courts' — to extend such legal remedies.
Addressing the second question, the court also found that violations of the Repair Act do not automatically void a repair shop’s invoices.
The statute's primary remedies include fines and administrative penalties, typically enforced by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
The court noted that a punitive remedy like voiding invoices would disrupt the statutory framework, which allows for penalties proportionate to harm caused rather than automatic nullification of payments for completed work.
The ruling represents a setback for insurers like GEICO who seek stronger leverage in disputes with repair shops.
The court underscored that government mechanisms remain available to address noncompliance but cautioned against reading punitive measures into the statute that the legislature did not explicitly include.
Legal analysts note this decision may influence the broader dynamics of insurance-repair shop relations and consumer protection enforcement in Florida.
John P. Marino, Lindsey R. Trowell, Max Gershenoff and Yonatan Bernstein of Rivkin Radler LLP in Jacksonville represented GEICO.
Howard J. Levine of the Law Office of Howard Levine in Miami Beach; and Michael V. Laurato of Ocala, represented Glassco Inc., John Bailey, Jason Wilemon and Andrew Victor.
Attorneys did not respond to requests for comment on the matter.
Last year, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed Senate Bill 1002, known as the Windshield Repair Bill, to curb assignment-of-benefit (AOB) litigation over cracked windshields in Florida.
The legislation aimed to stop glass repair shops and attorneys from exploiting the system for profit. Advocates believed the bill will reduce lawsuits, lower insurance costs and improve consumer protection.
Predatory litigation practices reportedly led to high legal fees and thousands of claims annually, jumping from 591 in 2011 to 37,000 in 2022.
Supporters, including insurance and fraud prevention groups, viewed the legislation as a step toward consumer fairness and combating frivolous claims.
Florida Supreme Court case number: SC2023-1540