A recent appellate court decision has clarified how Ohio law applies when an insurance company challenges the reasonableness of charges from a car repair shop, specifically regarding vehicle storage fees. The case centers on whether a repair facility can be considered a ‘storage facility’ under state law, affecting what insurers must pay when vehicles are stored after being declared total losses.
The dispute began when GEICO Insurance Company filed a complaint against Glendale Body Shop, Inc., in Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas on March 4, 2024. GEICO alleged that it insured Jennifer Miranda, whose 2014 Mini Cooper was towed and stored by Glendale Body Shop after an accident. After paying what it considered the undisputed portion of the bill, GEICO sought to challenge the remaining charges under Ohio Revised Code section 4513.70 and requested recovery of the vehicle.
According to court documents, Glendale Body Shop moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that it was not acting as a towing service or storage facility as defined by state law. After further filings and amendments by GEICO to clarify its claims under R.C. 4513.70, Glendale Body Shop responded with a counterclaim seeking more than $25,000 for expenses related to evaluating and estimating repairs for the vehicle.
The legal conflict focused on two main issues: whether Glendale Body Shop qualified as a ‘towing service’ or ‘storage facility’ under R.C. 4513.70, and whether the amount charged for storing the vehicle was reasonable. Testimony during hearings revealed that while Glendale Body Shop facilitated towing through another company, it did not itself tow vehicles but did charge storage fees once vehicles were deemed total losses or repairs were canceled.
Dustin McCue, damages supervisor at GEICO, testified that storage charges typically begin only after a total loss determination is made. Tyler Damron, shop manager at Glendale Body Shop, stated that his business operates primarily as a repair facility and does not accept vehicles solely for storage purposes.
Despite these arguments, the trial court found that Glendale Body Shop could be considered both a storage facility and/or towing service under relevant sections of R.C. 4513.70 because it received vehicles from for-hire motor carriers and charged storage fees included in its contracts with customers.
In determining damages at a subsequent hearing held on March 6, 2025, the trial court found some of Glendale’s miscellaneous charges reasonable but limited payment for storage fees to ten days instead of thirty-seven days originally billed by Glendale Body Shop. The court explained: “There is no reason to believe that it should take over a month to determine if a vehicle was a total loss… A determination that the vehicle was a total loss… should have occurred within 10 days.” As such, GEICO was ordered to pay $2,239.57 in additional charges beyond what had already been paid.
Glendale Body Shop appealed this ruling on two grounds: first, challenging its classification as subject to R.C. 4513.70; second, contesting the limitation on recoverable storage fees as lacking evidentiary support given their contract with the insured customer.
On appeal, Presiding Judge Zayas wrote that while evidence did not show Glendale acted as a ‘for-hire motor carrier,’ it did function as a ‘storage facility’ since vehicles were delivered there by outside towing companies and storage fees were charged accordingly—even if not exclusively for storage purposes.
Regarding damages calculation, the appellate panel found sufficient evidence supported limiting recoverable storage costs to ten days based on industry practices described by witnesses from both sides: “Both McCue and Damron testified that… ‘storage’ is not charged during repairs and does not begin until there is a determination that a vehicle is a total loss.”
Ultimately, both assignments of error raised by Glendale Body Shop were overruled and the trial court’s judgment affirmed without penalty assessed against either party.
Attorneys involved in this case include William J. Moran Jr., representing GEICO Insurance Company; Dennis A. Becker and Justin S. Becker from Becker & Cade representing Glendale Body Shop Inc.; with Presiding Judge Zayas authoring the opinion alongside Judges Crouse and Bock concurring (Case ID: C-250278).
Source: 2026Ohio899_Geico_Insurance_Company_v_Glendale_Body_Shop_Inc_Opinion_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
