.

SIU Spotlight

Auto Glass Litigation in Florida: A Closer Look at Two Landmark Cases

SIU Spotlight, Issue 2, Vol. 1, March 2025

March 1, 2025

By Marshall Dennehey Insurance Fraud & SIU Practice Group | Florida

Auto glass litigation in Florida has become a significant area of concern for both insurance companies and repair businesses. Disputes between insurers and auto glass repair shops often revolve around billing practices, consumer protection, and the legitimacy of claims. Two recent cases, Gov’t Employees Insurance Co. v. Glassco Inc., No. SC2023-1540 (Fla. Sept. 25, 2024), and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company et al. v. At Home Auto Glass LLC et al., 8:21-cv-00239-TPB-AEP, have shaped the legal landscape for auto glass repair disputes in the state. 

An analysis of these cases offers insight into the complex relationship between insurance companies, repair shops, and the Florida Motor Vehicle Repair Act (FMVRA) and Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA). This article examines both cases and their implications for the auto glass industry in Florida.

Gov’t Employees Insurance Co. v. Glassco Inc.

In Gov’t Employees Insurance Co. v. Glassco Inc., the Florida Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in September 2024 which concluded that an insurance company does not have the right to sue an auto glass repair shop for violating the Florida Motor Vehicle Repair Act (FMVRA). This has resulted in significant implications for the auto glass industry in Florida, particularly regarding the processing and payment of claims by insurance companies.

Background of the Case
The case arose after Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO) sued Glassco Inc., a repair shop, alleging it had violated the FMVRA by failing to provide a written estimate for windshield repairs, as required by Florida law. GEICO argued this failure to provide the necessary written estimate made the repair invoice invalid, and the insurer refused to pay for the repairs.

Florida Supreme Court’s Ruling
After five years of litigation, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that GEICO could not sue Glassco under the FMVRA. The court clarified that the statute in question, Section 559.921(1), does not grant an insurance company a cause of action when a repair shop fails to provide a written estimate. Moreover, the court ruled, even if there was an alleged violation of the FMVRA, it did not invalidate a completed repair invoice, meaning the repair shop was still entitled to be paid for services rendered.

Key Takeaways
The Florida Supreme Court emphasized that the FMVRA does not provide a private cause of action for insurers to sue repair shops. Insurance companies cannot withhold payment on the grounds that an auto glass repair shop violated the statute by not providing a written estimate or invoice. The decision clarified that insurance claims must be processed and paid according to the contractual terms, regardless of FMVRA violations, unless those violations directly harm the customer. The court’s ruling highlights that the statute’s protections are aimed at consumers, not insurance companies, and insurers do not have the right to enforce these protections in court.

This decision is a critical development for both auto glass repair businesses and insurers. It limits the ability of insurance companies to challenge invoices for minor procedural violations and reinforces the need for clear contractual terms when processing claims. However, the ruling can be altered only through legislative change, which would require action from Florida lawmakers.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company et al. v. At Home Auto Glass LLC et al.

In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company et al. v. At Home Auto Glass LLC et al., a federal district court examined whether At Home Auto Glass violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA) by unlawfully soliciting business and obtaining insurance payments through improper means. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company had paid over $1 million to At Home Auto Glass for windshield repairs and replacements, but the insurer alleged At Home Auto Glass had engaged in unfair practices by obtaining customer assignments and insurance payments through deceptive means.

Background of the Case
State Farm’s lawsuit accused At Home Auto Glass of unlawfully contracting with its insured customers and soliciting business through practices that violated Florida’s consumer protection laws. State Farm argued the glass repair shop had engaged in deceptive actions by obtaining assignments of benefits (AOB) from customers, which allowed them to bill State Farm directly for the cost of windshield repairs. The insurer sought damages and declaratory relief, claiming that At Home Auto Glass’s actions were unfair and deceptive.

Court’s Ruling
The court ultimately ruled against State Farm, stating that At Home Auto Glass had not violated FDUTPA or engaged in unjust enrichment. The court found that there was no evidence to suggest that any customer had been harmed or financially impacted by At Home Auto Glass’s practices. In fact, customers received the services they had been promised, a windshield repair or replacement at no cost to them.

The court also noted there was no evidence showing that At Home Auto Glass had acted unjustly in obtaining payment from State Farm; the insurer had paid for services rendered according to the contracts with its insureds. Furthermore, the court declined to issue a declaratory judgment at the summary judgment stage, stating that such a decision was more appropriately handled by a state court as the case involved Florida state law.

Key Takeaways
This case is significant in that it clarifies how FDUTPA applies to auto glass repair practices in Florida. The court’s ruling underscores that, to prevail in a FDUTPA claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate there was actual harm to consumers. Since there was no evidence of consumer harm, the court dismissed the claims of unfair trade practices. 

The case also emphasizes that, while repair shops like At Home Auto Glass, may benefit from the assignment of benefits system, it does not automatically mean they have acted unlawfully or unfairly, as long as the consumer receives the service they contracted for.

The decision also highlights the importance of having clear evidence of customer harm in cases alleging deceptive trade practices. 

For insurers, this ruling demonstrates that the mere existence of AOB contracts or the use of third-party repair services does not automatically constitute a violation of consumer protection laws.

Conclusion

Both the Gov’t Employees Insurance Co. v. Glassco Inc. and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company et al. v. At Home Auto Glass LLC et al. cases have set important precedents for auto glass litigation in Florida. These decisions provide clarity on how insurers can challenge auto glass repair invoices and what constitutes unfair or deceptive business practices under Florida law. 

For repair shops, these rulings reinforce the importance of maintaining compliance with state regulations and being transparent with customers about the services provided. 

For insurance companies, the rulings highlight the need to process claims in accordance with contractual obligations and consumer protections, while understanding the limits of their legal standing in disputes with repair businesses.

As the landscape of auto glass litigation in Florida continues to evolve, these cases serve as essential guidelines for both insurers and repair shops, ensuring that the legal framework governing the industry remains clear and equitable. However, as these rulings indicate, any future changes to the laws or litigation practices may come from legislative reforms rather than judicial action. Therefore, stakeholders in Florida’s auto glass repair industry must stay informed about these developments to navigate the complexities of auto glass claims effectively. 


 

SIU Spotlight, Issue 2, Vol. 1, March 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Casey Alan Coyle Joins Marshall Dennehey's PA Appellate Practice as a Shareholder in Harrisburg and Philadelphia

News

Marshall Dennehey Expands Leading Pennsylvania Appellate Practice With Addition of Shareholder Casey Coyle

Portrait of Carolyn Schweizer, with text below: Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

Thought Leadership

Ohio Supreme Court Holds That a Binding Appraisal Award May Not Be Set Aside Absent Specific Evidence of Manifest Mistake or Fraud

On July 23, 2026, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a rare opinion on the binding effect of an appraisal award in a property insurance policy.  The Court in One Church held: A binding appraisal award will not be set aside unless an error is so palpably wrong that it undermines the intent of the agreement, such as corruption or gross mistake, not a mere error of judgment—To plead a claim of mistake with particularity as required by Civ.R. 9(B), facts alleged in a complaint must constitute the elements of mistake—Allegation that additional, hidden damage was discovered after appraisal award failed to state a claim of mistake that could justify setting aside binding appraisal.  The case arose out of a claim brought by One Church against its insurer, Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company for roof damage from a storm. Pursuant to the terms of the insurance policy, the parties agreed to submit the matter to appraisal. The two appraisers inspected the building, and both appraisers agreed that the damages were $313,271.98. The insurer paid the agreed appraised amount.  Thereafter, the insured submitted a claim for an additional $206,663.09 in damages. The insured argued that these additional damages were not discovered until after the repairs began, and that they should be permitted to submit an additional claim, even though there had already been a binding appraisal of damages. The insurer refused to pay the additional damages, and the insured sued for breach of contract and bad faith.  In the trial court, the insurer moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that the binding appraisal award barred any further claims. The insured took the position that additional hidden damages could not be discovered until after the repairs began, and therefore there was a mutual mistake. The trial court dismissed the case on the insurer’s motion, because there was no “evidence of fraud, misfeasance, or mistake”. The Court of Appeals agreed that appraisal awards are generally binding, but noted that an appraisal award can be set aside for fraud or manifest mistake. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the trial court, finding that the insured had pled mistake with sufficient particularity. The insurer appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court. On appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the trial court decision dismissing the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Supreme Court found that since the insured had already demanded appraisal, and the appraisal award was binding, “something more than error of judgement, such as corruption in the arbitrator, or gross mistake” must be pled with particularity, and proven for the insured to override the appraisal award. Since the complaint did not allege fraud or manifest mistake with sufficient particularity, something more than a mere error of judgment, the complaint was insufficient to state a claim.  The complaint in this case did not challenge the appraisal award. It pled that additional damages were discovered that were not apparent when the appraisal was done. It did not specify “who discovered the damages, how they were discovered, where they were found, why they were previously hidden, or why they rise to the level of a manifest mistake that the “appraiser would have corrected...had it been called to his attention”. Id at ¶22 citing Lakewood Mfg. Co. v. Home Ins. Co. of New York, 422 F.2d 796, 798 (6th Cir. 1970). Cases deciding the effect of appraisal awards are unusual. The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in One Church relies primarily on 19th century case law for its conclusion. This emphasizes the fact that there is minimal case law deciding the effect of binding appraisal clauses in property insurance policies, and makes this case all the more significant. A lengthy dissent was written by Justice Fisher, who would have affirmed the Court of Appeals decision reversing and remanding the case for a decision on the merits. Of course, the decision works both ways, and an insurer dissatisfied with a binding appraisal award will likewise be without further recourse absent evidence of corruption, fraud, misfeasance, or manifest mistake, which must be pled with particularity. To constitute manifest mistake, “the mistake must be of such character that the arbitrator or appraiser would have corrected it had it been called to his attention.”  Lakewood Mfg. Co. v. Home Ins. Co. of New York, 422 F.2d 796, 798 (6th Cir. 1970).  The majority opinion does not specifically identify what would have been sufficient to plead mistake with particularity, or if the insured could have amended the complaint to overcome the deficiencies. The dissent argues that this was not really a case alleging mistake, but rather a question of contract interpretation. The insured did not challenge the appraisal, but argued that the hidden damage was not part of the appraisal, and the appraisal only covered the known damages.  However, this argument did not carry the day with the majority. 

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Thought Leadership

The Best Defense is Already in the File: Documentation in Civil Rights Litigation

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Appellate Division Affirms Exclusion of Legal Malpractice Expert as Impermissible Net Opinion

Jack Slimm and Jeremy Zacharias obtained a favorable decision on behalf of their client in a case centering on the admissibility of expert testimony in legal malpractice actions. In Martin v. Loury, the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the exclusion of a plaintiff's legal malpractice expert, holding that the expert's opinions on causation and damages were too speculative to support the malpractice claim. The legal malpractice action arose from an underlying employment dispute involving claims for damages stemming from the breach of an employment agreement. The plaintiff alleged that defense counsel committed malpractice during a second trial by failing to recall the plaintiff as a rebuttal witness after the employer's CEO testified. According to the plaintiff's expert, additional rebuttal testimony would have bolstered the plaintiff's damages claims and led to a more favorable result. Both the trial court and the Appellate Division rejected that theory. The courts found that the expert could not explain how the proposed rebuttal testimony would have altered the outcome of the underlying case or resulted in any additional recoverable damages. Notably, the trial judge in the underlying employment matter had already rejected the CEO's testimony as not credible and had accepted the damages analysis advanced by the plaintiff. The court had also determined that the amount of damages was not genuinely disputed. As a result, the expert's opinion that additional rebuttal testimony would have produced a better outcome was unsupported by the record and based on speculation rather than evidence. The Appellate Division agreed that neither the plaintiff nor the expert could identify any actual damages attributable to the alleged malpractice or demonstrate the required element of proximate causation. The court further upheld the trial court's application of New Jersey's net opinion doctrine, finding that the expert failed to provide the necessary "why and wherefore" supporting his conclusion that the attorney's conduct caused a compensable loss. Because the opinions rested on unquantified possibilities rather than demonstrable facts, they were inadmissible. Key Takeaway for Legal Malpractice Defendants For attorneys and firms defending legal malpractice claims, Martin v. Loury underscores the importance of closely scrutinizing an opponent's expert report on the critical elements of proximate causation and damages. The decision demonstrates that a malpractice claim cannot survive where an expert merely speculates that different litigation tactics might have produced a better result. Instead, the plaintiff must present admissible expert testimony grounded in the record that explains how the alleged attorney error probably changed the outcome of the underlying matter and resulted in measurable damages.

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict. 

Result

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent