255 So. 3d 415
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- Safari Tours’ tour bus was damaged and taken to Phoenix Automotive for repairs; Phoenix provided a written repair estimate listing $25,173.47 in repair costs.
- Phoenix’s written estimate left blank the line for a daily storage charge despite containing a boilerplate sentence that a storage fee “of $__ per day may be applied” if vehicle not claimed within three working days.
- A payment dispute led Safari to sue for return of the bus; Phoenix counterclaimed for $18,000 in repair costs, storage fees (unspecified amount), and non-economic tort damages.
- The jury awarded Phoenix $18,000 for repairs, $5,000 on the tort claim, and $27,375 for storage fees (apparently $25/day for three years).
- Safari moved post-trial for JNOV/new trial/remittitur; the trial court denied relief and entered final judgment.
- On appeal, the court affirmed all awards except reversed the storage-fee portion because Phoenix’s estimate failed to comply with the written-estimate requirement of section 559.905(1)(n).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Phoenix can collect storage fees despite leaving daily charge blank on written estimate | Safari: statute requires written notice of daily storage charge; blank line violates §559.905(1)(n) so fees unrecoverable | Phoenix: substantial compliance may be shown (potentially via trial evidence/transcript) so fees should be recoverable | Held: Phoenix may not collect storage fees; blank line fails §559.905(1)(n) and record lacks written evidence of compliance |
| Whether substantial compliance can be shown by oral trial evidence/transcript | Safari: statute requires the written estimate to contain the notice; oral evidence cannot cure blank written estimate | Phoenix: suggested trial transcript/evidence could show substantial compliance despite blank form | Held: Court rejected oral-only cure; precedents require written estimate known to owner for substantial compliance; transcript not shown and exhibits do not evidence compliance |
| Whether other parts of judgment (repair costs, tort award) should be disturbed | Safari: challenged tort award and storage fees; repair award not contested | Phoenix: defended entire verdict | Held: Repair costs and tort award affirmed; only storage-fee award reversed and remanded for revised judgment |
| Whether retention-of-vehicle portion of judgment remains | Safari: challenged court authorization for Phoenix to retain bus until judgment paid | Phoenix: enforced retention | Held: Issue moot because Phoenix auctioned the bus; court did not decide on retention provision |
Key Cases Cited
- Osteen v. Morris, 481 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 5th DCA) (written-estimate noncompliance bars collection)
- Siam Motors, Inc. v. Spivey, 136 So. 3d 692 (Fla. 2d DCA) (proper written estimate allows oral authorization for extra repairs)
- KT’s Kar Kare, Inc. v. Laing, 617 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 4th DCA) (handwritten estimate substantially complied where parties agreed)
- Lieberman v. Collision Specialists, Inc., 526 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 4th DCA) (substantially conforming written estimate by insurer entitled repair shop to payment)
- Perez-Priego v. Bayside Carburetor & Ignition Corp., 633 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 5th DCA) (appellate limitations where trial transcript absent)
- Antar v. Seamiles LLC, 960 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 3d DCA) (mootness when issues cease to exist)