.

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

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

News

Marshall Dennehey Named a Standout in Litigation by BTI Consulting Group

Result

$19 Million Medical Malpractice Verdict Overturned

In this medical malpractice case, the trial court vacated $10 million of a $19 million verdict in post-trial motions and the Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated the remaining $9 million on appeal.

Thought Leadership

Appeals Court Reverses Trial Court Order Awarding Attorney’s Fees Due to Lack of Evidence to Support Fee Awarded

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order awarding appellate fees to People’s Trust Insurance Company based upon a lack of evidence to support the attorney’s fee award in RM & Assocs. Consulting, Inc. v. People's Trust Ins. Co., 2026 Fla. App. LEXIS 4654 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026). People’s Trust was the insurer of a residential property that had sustained water damage. RM & Associates Consulting was hired by the homeowner to perform mitigation services at the property. The homeowner assigned post-loss benefits to RM and RM subsequently filed suit against People’s Trust alleging that it had not been paid the money it was owed for the mitigation services. People’s Trust defended the lawsuit on the ground that the policy required the insured to notify the insurer before authorizing repairs so People's Trust could elect to use its preferred contractor. Because the owner did not comply with that provision, People's Trust asserted its liability was limited to the amount that its preferred contractor would have charged for the work, which People's Trust contended was $2,000. People's Trust paid that amount to RM before RM filed suit. People’s Trust filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted. RM appealed the summary judgment ruling and the ruling was upheld by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The appellate court also granted People’s Trust’s entitlement to appellate attorney’s fees, subject to the trial court’s determination of the amount of fees, based upon an offer of judgment made by People's Trust. On remand, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of attorney’s fees People’s Trust was entitled to. At the hearing, People’s Trust presented testimony from it’s fee expert, supervising trial counsel and appellate counsel. People’s Trust sought recovery of $24,866.17 for work performed by appellate counsel. The request primarily consisted of work performed in preparation of the answer brief. The fee expert testified that more than ninety hours spent preparing the answer brief was reasonable given the complexity and significance of the underlying issue. The appellate court found that the fee expert’s testimony fell short of meeting the necessary standard of demonstrating that the hours expended were necessary. The appellate court found that the billing records did not serve to cure the deficient testimony, as the billing records did not contain adequate details regarding the specific tasks performed. Rather the records contained entries such as “answer brief” which the appellate court found to be insufficient. The appellate court noted that neither the fee expert or counsel addressed how the prior research and briefing in the parallel litigation informed the work in the instant matter. The appellate court noted this was significant in that a court's attorney's fees award must exclude excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary hours, citing Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985). Based upon the record failing to support the finding of the trial court, the 4th DCA remanded the case to the trial court for a reconsideration and redetermination of reasonable appellate attorney’s fees supported by competent substantial evidence. The 4th DCA reiterated that the fee expert’s focus on the quality of the work and the importance of the work to People’s Trust did not make up for the perceived deficiencies in the position that spending over ninety hours on a single answer brief was reasonable. Whether moving for attorney’s fees or challenging the amount of fees being sought by an opposing party, practitioners should be mindful of the evidence being used to support the claims being made. Parties should pay close attention to whether the hours being sought may be impacted by prior litigation either party may have engaged in. A party must be prepared to address how prior litigation efforts did or did not impact the amount of hours being claimed in current litigation. Lastly, billing records must be sufficiently detailed so as to support any potential future fee claim.

Result

$1.09 Billion Products Liability Verdict Overturned

In this products liability crashworthiness case, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed a Philadelphia jury verdict of $1.09 billion, the largest verdict ever overturned by a PA appellate court.  The court ordered a new trial based on deficient jury instructions, clarified important aspects of crashworthiness law, and confirmed that so-called standard jury instructions may be incompatible with Pennsylvania law. 

Event

CLM 2026 Focus Conference

Allison joins three insurance industry leaders to discuss how cyber coverage disputes, the growing impact of social inflation on bodily injury claim valuation, and the use of artificial intelligence are reshaping the bad faith landscape. The panel will examine emerging sources of extra-contractual exposure, including evolving cyber insurance coverage issues and the challenges of accurately valuing bodily injury claims. Practical approaches to claim evaluation using AI, along with defense strategies designed to help prevent or successfully defend against bad faith litigation, will also be addressed. 

Result

Statutory Employer Immunity Upheld

In this construction accident case that resulted in a $5 million verdict, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upheld the Statutory Employer Doctrine, which immunizes general contractors and other contractors on construction sites when certain elements are satisfied.

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

News

Bret E. Dubbert Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Orlando Office as Special Counsel in the Casualty Department

Thought Leadership

First DCA Reverses Excessive Jury Award Unsupported by the Evidence

In December 2019, the plaintiffs filed a claim with Universal for damages caused by a water and sewage back up through the plumbing system and existing through multiple fixtures including the washing machine drain, kitchen sink, dishwasher, bathtub and toilet. Universal investigated the claim, issued payment for resulting water damage totaling $7,000.00 in actual cash value ($12,000.00 in replacement cost value). The plaintiffs sought additional benefits for work needed to access the below-slab cast iron plumbing system due to the failure of the system from rust, deterioration, corrosion and breaks in the line. Universal denied any additional benefits for access. In 2021, the plaintiffs filed suit. During litigation, Universal sent a plumber to inspect the home and the plumber concluded the pipes were clogged but could be cleaned. The plaintiffs’ plumber testified that the plumbing system needed to be replaced due to holes and openings in the pipes. The plaintiffs introduced two estimates prepared by Triad Restoration services totaling $79,680.22 in replacement cost value and $50,219.97 in actual cash value and an executed contract with another company for repairs with the amounts of repair redacted. Since the insurance policy did not provide coverage for repair or replacement of the plumbing system, the jury only had to decide whether the plumbing system needed to be replaced, and if it did, Universal would owe for the access costs; the jury verdict form required the jury to determine both the replacement cost value and actual cash value amounts. The jury asked if it had to rely on the Triad estimates for their amounts. The trial court advised the amount awarded had to be based on the evidence presented at trial and the law given by the trial court. The jury awarded $335,000.00 in replacement cost value or $305,000.00 in actual cash value. Universal motioned for a new trial arguing the amount awarded was unsupported by the evidence and then moved for remittitur. The trial court denied both motions and this appeal followed. The court found that while a jury’s verdict should only be disturbed with caution and discretion, the trial court must give the properly challenged award close scrutiny and determine whether it bears a reasonable relation to the damaged provided, is supported by the evidence, and could have been reached in a logical manner by reasonable means §768.74(3), (5)(d)-(e), Fla. Stat. The court found the trial court did consider the statutory requirements at the hearing on Universal’s remittitur motion and was concerned about a reasonable relation to the amount of damages proved and injury suffered and whether the award was supported by the evidence, but ultimately denied the motion, reasoning that the jury had been properly instructed to fairly and adequately compensate the plaintiffs. The court noted the only evidence providing the basis for the jury verdict was Triad’s estimates and those valued the plaintiffs' claimed loss at $79,680.22 in replacement cost value and $50,219.97 in actual cash value; no valuation evidence reasonably supported the jury verdict. The plaintiffs argued that the jury was entitled to consider more than the estimates, but the court conveyed the evidence provided did not give the jury a way to reach the amounts they awarded. The court was also not swayed by the plaintiffs’ argument regarding inflation and later price increases, but the court noted that no evidence via the contract, nor testimony regarding increase in labor, material, fuel or construction costs were entered into the record.  The court concluded the jury may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, but it may not supply a damages number by speculation. The court did not find any of the plaintiffs’ remaining argument persuasive either. The court reversed the denial of Universal’s remittitur motion and motion for new trial as to damaged and remanded the case. The court ended its opinion with advising the trial court must determine whether replacement cost value or actual cash value is the property measure of damages under the policy and order remittitur in an amount consistent with that determination and the evidence.

Thought Leadership

United State District Court for the Middle District of Florida finds Evidence of Replacement Cost Value is Admissible and Recoverable Even When Repairs Have Not Been Made

The plaintiff filed a claim for damage as a result of Hurricane Ian. It claimed damages were over $24 million, but the carrier accepted partial coverage and paid $8,307.49 for secondary components. The carrier found hurricane damage to the building, but it was below the insurance policy’s $3.6 million deductible. The plaintiff sued for breach of the insurance policy. The carrier argued in a motion for summary judgment that plaintiff could not recover replacement cost value (RCV) because the property repairs had not been effectuated. The policy provided for RCV, but only after the repairs were completed. The carrier argued that because the repairs were not completed, the plaintiff was not entitled to RCV damages. The plaintiff argued the carrier could not withhold the actual cost value (ACV) due, which was the main allegation of the lawsuit, then fault it for not making the repairs to unlock the RCV. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida rejected the carrier’s argument, finding that when an insurer allegedly breached the policy by withholding coverage, it could not hide behind a repair-contingent provision to block the insured from RCV damages at trial. The court found the issue to be whether the contractual language designed to preclude certain coverage until after repairs are completed barred an insured from seeking those damages at trial when repairs were not complete. The court noted the Eleventh Circuit had not resolved this issue and neither side pointed to a definitive answer from the Florida Supreme Court. The court reasoned that it must look to the Sixth District Court of Appeal (6th DCA), which is the court which would have heard this case if it was in state court. The court noted the 6th DCA recently addressed this issue in Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Rodriguez, 427 So. 3d 676 (Fla. 6th DCA 2026). The Rodriguez Court found that a breach of contract action is designed to adjudicate not only whether the contract was breached, but also evaluate the damages incurred had the breach not occurred, which the Rodriguez court found to be recovery of the RCV. This court also noted basic Florida contract principles compelled the same result, as a material breach frees the nonbreaching party to suspend its own performance and can demand the full benefit of its bargain, including RCV damages. Finally, the court found the distinction between a full denial and partial denial did not compel a different result. It found the policy required the carrier to acknowledge coverage and pay ACV for all covered damages, and the failure to do that is a material breach, entitling the insured to all of the damages available under the contract, which included the RCV.

graphic announcing our 6 2027 Super Lawyers & Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2027 New Jersey Super Lawyers And Rising Stars