Government Employees Insurance Company v. Glassco, Inc., 85 F.4th 1136

GEICO insureds assigned their insurance benefits to Glassco, a Florida windshield‑repair shop; Glassco’s signed work orders stated repairs were “no cost” to the insured and authorized "sublet work" and contractors to operate the vehicle.
Glassco invoiced GEICO for repairs; GEICO paid deeply discounted amounts rather than full invoiced prices for ~1,773 claims. Glassco obtained favorable small‑claims judgments on a subset and settled some other cases.
GEICO sued Glassco and its owners in federal court alleging five statutory violations of Florida’s Motor Vehicle Repair Act (the Repair Act) and asserting eight causes of action (including a standalone Repair Act claim, RICO, FDUTPA, fraud, unjust enrichment). GEICO seeks recovery of ~$700,000.
The district court dismissed GEICO’s Repair Act statutory claim (Count 8) on the ground GEICO is not a “customer” under the Act, and granted summary judgment for defendants on GEICO’s remaining claims to the extent they were premised on Repair Act violations (holding the Act does not render invoices non‑payable).
The Eleventh Circuit, finding unsettled state law questions of substantial importance, certified two questions to the Supreme Court of Florida about (1) whether an insurer may sue under Fla. Stat. § 559.921(1) when no written repair estimate was provided and (2) whether the Repair Act violations at issue void a repair invoice and preclude payment by an insurer.

Issue	GEICO's Argument	Glassco's Argument	Held
Whether Fla. Stat. § 559.921(1) (private right of action) allows an insurer to sue when no written repair estimate was provided	GEICO: remedial statute should be liberally construed to permit an insurer to sue despite not being a defined "customer," otherwise noncompliance could leave no private remedy and subvert the Act	Glassco: statute plainly limits private suits to "customers" as defined; GEICO did not sign or request repairs and thus lacks standing	Eleventh Circuit did not resolve; certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court for authoritative state‑law answer
Whether violations of the Repair Act here void a repair invoice and bar payment by an insurer (making invoices fraudulent/unlawful)	GEICO: any Repair Act violation renders the shop’s invoice noncompensable (quantum meruit barred); thus submission to insurer is unlawful/fraudulent	Glassco: Act contains no voiding penalty; § 559.921(7) permits recovery of reasonable value where appropriate; many cited Florida cases are distinguishable or predate amendments	Eleventh Circuit treated the violations as assumed for record purposes but did not decide the substantive state‑law question; certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court

Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 (U.S. 1975) (state courts are the ultimate expositors of state law)
In re Cassell, 688 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2012) (federal courts should certify unsettled state‑law questions to state supreme courts)
GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Glassco, Inc., 343 So. 3d 565 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022) (state appellate disposition of some small‑claims judgments)
1616 Sunrise Motors, Inc. v. A‑Leet Leasing of Florida, 547 So. 2d 267 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989) (interpretation of Repair Act provisions in lien/collection context)
Allstate v. Auto Glass Am., LLC, 418 F. Supp. 3d 1009 (M.D. Fla. 2019) (district court conclusion that insurer was not a "customer" under the Repair Act)
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Performance Orthopaedics & Neurosurgery, LLC, 278 F. Supp. 3d 1307 (S.D. Fla. 2017) (survey of statutes that contain express voiding penalties)
America Atlantic Transmission v. Nice Car, Inc., 112 So. 3d 639 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013) (refusal to extend "customer" definition to non‑customers asserting interests)
Safari Tours, Inc. v. Pasco, 255 So. 3d 415 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018) (Repair Act case distinguishing customer disputes over estimates)