Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 320.697 (2025)
Civil damages.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
320.697 Civil damages.—Any person who has suffered pecuniary loss or who has been otherwise adversely affected because of a violation by a licensee of ss. 320.60-320.70, notwithstanding the existence of any other remedies under ss. 320.60-320.70, has a cause of action against the licensee for damages and may recover damages therefor in any court of competent jurisdiction in an amount equal to 3 times the pecuniary loss, together with costs and a reasonable attorney’s fee to be assessed by the court. Upon a prima facie showing by the person bringing the action that such a violation by the licensee has occurred, the burden of proof shall then be upon the licensee to prove that such violation or unfair practice did not occur.
History.—s. 17, ch. 70-424; s. 3, ch. 76-168; s. 96, ch. 77-104; s. 1, ch. 77-457; ss. 16, 17, ch. 80-217; ss. 2, 3, ch. 81-318; s. 11, ch. 84-69; ss. 20, 21, ch. 88-395; s. 4, ch. 91-429; s. 3, ch. 2017-187.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1981–2024 · leading case: Barry Cook Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).
Barry Cook Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 616 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). “" § 320.697, Fla. Stat. (1987). Given this statutory language, it cannot be seriously contended that the statute contemplates a court action for damages only after a violation has been found to exist by the DHSMV in an administrative proceeding.”
Winter Park Imports, Inc. v. JM Fam. Enter., 66 So. 3d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). “The plaintiff also sought monetary damages against the defendants pursuant to section 320.697. 2 Although the plaintiff divided its third amended complaint into counts seeking injunctive relief and counts seeking monetary damages, its claims arose from alleged violations of the…”
Gates v. Chrysler Corp., 397 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). “Appellant alleges that Chrysler violated the statute, giving rise to treble damages and attorneys' fees, in two ways.”
Pearson v. Ford Motor Co., 694 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). “695, injunction; and section 320.697, civil damages. Section 320.”
Hubbel v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 758 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 2000). “§§ 320.697, 320.8245, 320.838, Fla. Stat.”
Hopkins Pontiac GMC, Inc. v. Ally Fin. Inc., 60 F. Supp. 3d 1252 (N.D. Fla. 2014). “§ 1 (Claim 11); and for Attorney’s Fees under Fla. Stat. § 320.697 (Claim 12). It also alleges additional claims against General Motors for promissory estoppel (Claim 13) and negligent misrepresentation (Claim 14).”
All. of Auto. Mfrs., Inc. v. Jones, 897 F. Supp. 2d 1241 (N.D. Fla. 2012). “And Fla. Stat. § 320.697 authorizes a dealer to bring a private cause of action against any manufacturer, importer, or distributor that violates the Act and provides for mandatory recovery by a prevailing dealer of treble damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees.”
Mike Smith Pontiac, GMC, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North Am., Inc., 32 F.3d 528 (11th Cir. 1994). “(MSP) and Terry Taylor, Billy Grubbs and Terry Taylor Investments (collectively, Taylor) appeal the district court’s summary judgment that the Florida Automobile Dealer’s Act, Section 320.697, Florida Statutes (1985) does not mandate a treble damage award.”
West Palm Beach Acquisitions, Inc v. KIA Motors Am., Inc. (S.D. Fla. 2022). “” § 320.697, Fla. Stat. Additionally, a dealer harmed by such a violation, “notwithstanding the existence of any adequate remedy at law, .”
Brandon Chrysler Plymouth Jeep Eagle, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp., 898 F. Supp. 858 (M.D. Fla. 1995). “§ 320.697 (1993). That section provides as follows: Any person who has suffered pecuniary loss or who has been otherwise adversely affected because of a violation by a licensee of §§ 320.”
Action Nissan, Inc. v. Hyundai Motor Am. Corp. (M.D. Fla. 2024). “See Fla. Stat. § 320.697 (“Upon a prima facie showing by the person bringing the action that such a violation by the licensee has occurred, the burden of proof shall then be upon the licensee to prove that such violation or unfair practice did not occur.”
John Phillip Risley v. Nissan Motor Corp., 254 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2001). “1 For this violation, Appellants seek damages and attorney’s fees pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 320.697 . The district court granted summary judgment to Appellee.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.