Florida Supreme Court Rules Insurers Cannot Use the Motor Vehicle Repair Act to Void Glass Shop Invoices

A major Florida Supreme Court ruling in September 2024 settled a five-year dispute between GEICO and Kissimmee-based Glassco Inc., resolving two legal questions with significant implications for the auto glass industry's understanding of the Florida Motor Vehicle Repair Act (FMVRA). In its September 26 ruling, the court answered no to both questions the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals had certified to it.

The case began when Glassco sued GEICO for providing deeply discounted reimbursements for insurance claims. GEICO counter-sued, alleging that Glassco had provided services without giving customers proper written estimates, violating the FMVRA—and that GEICO was entitled to recover payments or void invoices as a result. The litigation made its way to the 11th Circuit, which certified two specific questions to the Florida Supreme Court.

Question one: does the FMVRA grant an insurance company a cause of action when a repair shop does not provide a written repair estimate? The Florida Supreme Court ruled no. Question two: does a violation of the Repair Act void a repair invoice for completed windshield repairs, precluding the shop from receiving any payment from the insurer? Again, the court ruled no. The double negative was a meaningful win for auto glass shops defending against insurer counter-suits.

The ruling confirmed that the FMVRA is a consumer protection statute: it protects vehicle owners from being billed for undisclosed repairs, not insurers from paying for legitimate work. GEICO conceded in the proceedings that it was not a "consumer" within the meaning of the FMVRA, a concession the court found material to its analysis.

For the auto glass industry broadly, the decision reaffirmed that technical FMVRA violations—such as failing to provide a written estimate before completing an emergency repair—do not extinguish the shop's right to be paid for legitimate work performed. Insurers cannot use the FMVRA as a lever to avoid payment obligations when the work was actually done and the customer was not harmed by the procedural omission.

Florida shops should nonetheless continue to provide written estimates as a best practice and a consumer protection obligation. The Supreme Court's ruling addresses insurer enforcement, not the underlying regulatory requirement—and customers who receive incomplete disclosures retain their own rights under the statute.