.

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

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.

Thought Leadership

U.S. Supreme Court Decides Key Issue Regarding Interstate Freight Broker Liability

Freight brokers are intermediaries.  They connect shippers of goods with trucking companies that transport those goods.  Freight brokers match a load of freight with a trucking company and oversee the logistics of the transportation. For a number of years there has been a division among the Federal Circuits regarding the potential liability of freight brokers when the trucking companies that they retain for interstate loads are involved in accidents.  At the center of this division was the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA).  Some Federal Circuit Courts have held that state law negligent hiring claims against freight brokers were preempted by the FAAAA .  Other Federal Circuits Courts have held that even if preemption applied, the “safety exception” in the FAAAA saved state law negligent hiring claims from federal preemption.  On May 14, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the conflict in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, et al, No24-1238. In that case freight broker C.H. Robinson selected Caribe Transport to haul an interstate load. The commercial truck driver employed by Caribe Transport allegedly caused an accident and the plaintiff, Montgomery, was seriously injured. Montgomery brought an action against the driver, Caribe Transport and C.H. Robinson. The allegation against C.H. Robinson was that it negligently retained Caribe Transport when it knew, or should have known, that it was an unsafe company. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that Montgomery’s claims against C.H. Robinson were preempted by the FAAAA. The plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision focused primarily on the safety exception in the FAAAA.  That provision provides that the FAAAA preemption “…shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles.” C.H. Robinson argued, as freight brokers historically have, that their function was not “with respect to motor vehicles” because they do not own trucks or employ drivers. They are merely intermediaries, connecting entities who need freight moved with entities who can do that job. Therefore, C.H. Robinson argued that preemption applied, not the safety exception. The U.S. Supreme Court did not accept that argument. The Court focused on the meaning of the phrase “with respect to” in the safety exception. The Court held that it means “referring to”, “concerning” or “regarding”. Therefore, writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Barrett concluded that “[r]equiring C.H. Robinson to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier therefore “concerns” motor vehicles—most obviously, the trucks that will transport the goods. So, Montgomery’s negligent-hiring claim falls within the FAAAA’s safety exception, which saves it from preemption.” Justice Kavanaugh, in his concurring opinion, noted the effect this ruling may have on freight brokers and their insurers throughout the country: Importantly, the Court's decision today should not be read to mean that brokers will routinely be subject to state tort liability in the wake of truck accidents. As even plaintiff's counsel stressed, brokers should be able to successfully defend against state tort suits if the brokers have acted reasonably and arranged transportation with reputable trucking companies. Tr. of Oral Arg. 27-29. In plaintiff's counsel's words, the brokers "just have to hire carriers that actually have a reasonable policy," and "the broker is not going to have a problem if it's asking the hard questions of the carrier." Id., at 42, 45. In addition, the proximate-cause requirement in typical state tort law should help protect brokers from excessive liability. Id., at 25. That said, the brokers rightly caution against naivete. In the real world, as the brokers forcefully respond, state tort law can be unpredictable, and the costs to brokers of litigation and insurance may be significant even when brokers prevail in lawsuits. Moreover, the costs of litigation and insurance, as well as the costs of brokers' conducting more substantial inquiries into trucking companies, will cascade through the economy and be paid in part by American consumers in the form of higher prices. The concerns expressed by the brokers are legitimate and weighty. The key point here is that freight brokers can no longer claim they are protected from negligent retention claims by the FAAAA (in cases involving interstate transportation). The challenge will be to determine what is considered ”reasonable efforts” used by brokers when retaining transportation companies. 

Event

29th Annual FDLA Florida Liability Claims Conference

Jim and Erica will team up to present, "Supporting the Next Generation: Connecting with Associates." This panel-style presentation will explore communication best practices from the perspective of a senior shareholder and newer associate. The discussion will focus on the communication styles of different generations and effective strategies to avoid communication breakdowns. Topics to be discussed include the hiring process, perceptions of defense work among newer lawyers, work-life balance issues after hiring, and mentoring.

News

Marshall Dennehey Again Earns Recognition in Distinguished Chambers USA

News

Christina Gonzales To Speak at the Women of Color Roundtable at DRI’s Diversity and Inclusion Seminar

Thought Leadership

Marijuana Legalization and Workplace Risk: What New Jersey Employers Need to Know

While the legalization of recreational marijuana usage poses a risk of increased work-related accidents for younger workers, employers can work to curb this increase by investing in education, effective drug policies, and employee assistance programs.

Thought Leadership

PA Middle District Dismisses Claims Against School District and its Superintendent, Principal, Special Education Director, and Classroom Teacher

A five-year-old special education student was enrolled in the Wyoming Valley West School District and attended the State Street Elementary School during the 2024-2025 school year. The student refused to clean up classroom toys at dismissal. When his teacher allegedly grabbed him by the wrist to walk him back to his seat, the student dropped to the floor and began crying. The teacher then allegedly grabbed the student by the ankle and dragged him across the floor. Following an investigation, criminal charges were not advanced by the county DA, and the school permitted the teacher to return to the classroom. The student’s parents sued, lodging thirteen legal counts under both state and federal law, which sought monetary damages from the teacher, the school district, the superintendent, the principal, and the director of special education. The plaintiff’s 42 USC 1983 claims were dismissed as to the school district for failure to allege a policy or custom violation, and the failure to alleged deliberate indifference in the failure-to-train context. As to the superintendent, building principal, and special education director, the Section 1983 claims were also dismissed for failure to allege personal involvement on the part of the individuals. Regarding an equal protection claim asserted against all defendants, the motion to dismiss was also granted for a failure to advance a plausible equal protection claim, holding that “plaintiffs' single-act allegations do not include a factual basis to even infer that the act was motivated by discriminatory animus rather than some other non-discriminatory impulse.” The court further dismissed the plaintiff’s negligence-based claims including negligence against the teacher and district administrators, NIED, and vicarious liability under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act (PSTCA). The federal claims under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA were also dismissed in various respects. The IDEA claim was dismissed against all defendants with prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Section 504 claims against the individual defendants were also dismissed with prejudice, as districts, not individuals, are the recipients of federal funds under Section 504. However, the Section 504 and ADA claims were dismissed without prejudice as to defendant Wyoming Valley West, and the plaintiff was permitted leave to amend.

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. 

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

graphic with Maria Granaudo photo text announces she has joined the firm as a shareholder in the Health Care Dept.

News

Maria R. Granaudo Joins Marshall Dennehey’s Wilmington Office As a Shareholder in the Health Care Department