Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 559.909 (2025)
Notification of charges in excess of repair estimate; unlawful charges; refusal to return vehicle prohibited; inspection of parts.
✓ 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
559.909 Notification of charges in excess of repair estimate; unlawful charges; refusal to return vehicle prohibited; inspection of parts.—
(1) In the event that:
(a) The written repair estimate contains only an estimate for diagnostic work necessary to estimate the cost of repair and such diagnostic work has been completed;
(b) A determination is made by a motor vehicle repair shop that the actual charges for the repair work will exceed the written estimate by more than $10 or 10 percent, whichever is greater, but not to exceed $50; or
(c) An implied partial waiver exists for diagnostic work, as described in s. 559.905(5), and such diagnostic work has been completed,
the customer shall be promptly notified by telephone, telegraph, mail, or other means of the additional repair work and estimated cost thereof. A customer so notified shall, orally or in writing, authorize, modify, or cancel the order for repair.
(2) If a customer cancels the order for repair after being advised that a repair which she or he has authorized cannot be accomplished within the previously authorized estimate, the shop shall expeditiously reassemble the motor vehicle in a condition reasonably similar to the condition in which it was received unless:
(a) The customer waives reassembly, or
(b) The reassembled vehicle would be unsafe.
After cancellation of the repair order, the shop may charge for the cost of teardown, the cost of parts and labor to replace items that were destroyed by teardown, and the cost to reassemble the component or the vehicle, provided the customer was notified of these possible costs in the estimate prior to commencement of the diagnostic work.
(3) It shall be unlawful for a motor vehicle repair shop to charge more than the written estimate plus $10 or 10 percent, whichever is greater, but not to exceed $50, unless the motor vehicle repair shop has obtained authorization to exceed the written estimate in accordance with subsection (1).
(4) It shall be unlawful for any motor vehicle repair shop to fail to return any customer’s motor vehicle because the customer has refused to pay for unauthorized repairs or because the customer has refused to pay for repair charges in excess of the final estimate in violation of this section.
(5) Upon request made at the time the repair work is authorized by the customer, the customer is entitled to inspect parts removed from her or his vehicle or, if the shop has no warranty arrangement or exchange parts program with a manufacturer, supplier, or distributor, have them returned to her or him.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2022 · leading case: Siam Motors, Inc. v. Spivey, 136 So. 3d 692 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).
Siam Motors, Inc. v. Spivey, 136 So. 3d 692 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). “Thus, section 559.909(1) allows for notification of the customer by telephone of any additional repair work and its estimated cost.”
Gonzalez v. Tremont Body & Towing, Inc., 483 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). “The cause is remanded for determination of the damages sustained by the appellant customer as a result of the shop's failure to return her vehicle because of her well-justified refusal to pay, § 559.909(5); [2] see Lucas Truck Service Co.”
Joshua Citron v. H.G.C. Auto Collision, Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2022). “” § 559.909(4), Fla. Stat. “No motor vehicle repair shop may refuse to return a customer’s motor vehicle by virtue of any miscellaneous lien, nor may it enforce such a lien in 6 any other fashion if it has failed to substantially comply with the provisions of [the Act].”
Reagan v. Luke Bolton Ford, Inc., 12 Fla. Supp. 2d 158 (Fla. Broward Cty. Ct. 1985). “F.S. 559.909 requires that'after such a written estimate is given, if the repair shop seeks to do additional repair work it shall, prior to doing the repairs, notify the customer (telephone notification be permitted) and receive oral or written authorization to do the additional…”
Golczynski v. Miller, 37 Fla. Supp. 2d 178 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1989). “The Court further finds that the Defendant notified Plaintiff orally regarding some of the repairs to the vehicle as required by Section 559.909(l)(c), Florida Statutes, and that some of these were authorized by Plaintiff.”
— 559.909(1) — 1 case
Siam Motors, Inc. v. Spivey, 136 So. 3d 692 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). “Thus, section 559.909(1) allows for notification of the customer by telephone of any additional repair work and its estimated cost.”
— 559.909(2) — 1 case
Reagan v. Luke Bolton Ford, Inc., 12 Fla. Supp. 2d 158 (Fla. Broward Cty. Ct. 1985). “F.S. 559.909 requires that'after such a written estimate is given, if the repair shop seeks to do additional repair work it shall, prior to doing the repairs, notify the customer (telephone notification be permitted) and receive oral or written authorization to do the additional…”
— 559.909(4) — 1 case
Joshua Citron v. H.G.C. Auto Collision, Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2022). “” § 559.909(4), Fla. Stat. “No motor vehicle repair shop may refuse to return a customer’s motor vehicle by virtue of any miscellaneous lien, nor may it enforce such a lien in 6 any other fashion if it has failed to substantially comply with the provisions of [the Act].”
— 559.909(5) — 2 cases
Gonzalez v. Tremont Body & Towing, Inc., 483 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). “The cause is remanded for determination of the damages sustained by the appellant customer as a result of the shop's failure to return her vehicle because of her well-justified refusal to pay, § 559.909(5); [2] see Lucas Truck Service Co.”
Siam Motors, Inc. v. Spivey, 136 So. 3d 692 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). “Thus, section 559.909(1) allows for notification of the customer by telephone of any additional repair work and its estimated cost.”
— 559.909(l)(c) — 2 cases
Siam Motors, Inc. v. Spivey, 136 So. 3d 692 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). “Thus, section 559.909(1) allows for notification of the customer by telephone of any additional repair work and its estimated cost.”
Golczynski v. Miller, 37 Fla. Supp. 2d 178 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1989). “The Court further finds that the Defendant notified Plaintiff orally regarding some of the repairs to the vehicle as required by Section 559.909(l)(c), Florida Statutes, and that some of these were authorized by Plaintiff.”
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.