Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

You're probably overthinking it. Call a lawyer.

Call Now: 904-383-7448
Florida Statute 337.403 - Full Text and Legal Analysis
Florida Statute 337.403 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
Link to State of Florida Official Statute
F.S. 337.403 Case Law from Google Scholar Google Search for Amendments to 337.403

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XXVI
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
Chapter 337
CONTRACTING; ACQUISITION, DISPOSAL, AND USE OF PROPERTY
View Entire Chapter
337.403 Interference caused by utility; expenses.—
(1) If a utility that is placed upon, under, over, or within the right-of-way limits of any public road or publicly owned rail corridor is found by the authority to be unreasonably interfering in any way with the convenient, safe, or continuous use, or the maintenance, improvement, extension, or expansion, of such public road or publicly owned rail corridor, the utility owner must, within 30 days after written notice to the utility or its agent by the authority, initiate the work necessary to alleviate the interference at its own expense except as provided in paragraphs (a)-(k). The work must be completed within such reasonable time as stated in the notice or such time as agreed to by the authority and the utility owner.
(a) If the relocation of utility facilities, as referred to in s. 111 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, Pub. L. No. 84-627, is necessitated by the construction of a project on the federal-aid interstate system, including extensions thereof within urban areas, and the cost of the project is eligible and approved for reimbursement by the Federal Government to the extent of 90 percent or more under the Federal-Aid Highway Act, or any amendment thereof, then in that event the utility owning or operating such facilities must perform any necessary work upon notice from the department, and the state must pay the entire expense properly attributable to such work after deducting therefrom any increase in the value of a new facility and any salvage value derived from an old facility.
(b) When a joint agreement between the department and the utility is executed for utility work to be accomplished as part of a contract for construction of a transportation facility, the department may participate in those utility work costs that exceed the department’s official estimate of the cost of the work by more than 10 percent. The amount of such participation is limited to the difference between the official estimate of all the work in the joint agreement plus 10 percent and the amount awarded for this work in the construction contract for such work. The department may not participate in any utility work costs that occur as a result of changes or additions during the course of the contract.
(c) When an agreement between the department and utility is executed for utility work to be accomplished in advance of a contract for construction of a transportation facility, the department may participate in the cost of clearing and grubbing necessary to perform such work.
(d) If the utility facility was initially installed to exclusively serve the authority or its tenants, or both, the authority must bear the costs of the utility work. However, the authority is not responsible for the cost of utility work related to any subsequent additions to that facility for the purpose of serving others. For a county or municipality, if such utility facility was installed in the right-of-way as a means to serve a county or municipal facility on a parcel of property adjacent to the right-of-way and if the intended use of the county or municipal facility is for a use other than transportation purposes, the obligation of the county or municipality to bear the costs of the utility work shall extend only to utility work on the parcel of property on which the facility of the county or municipality originally served by the utility facility is located.
(e) If, under an agreement between a utility and the authority entered into after July 1, 2009, the utility conveys, subordinates, or relinquishes a compensable property right to the authority for the purpose of accommodating the acquisition or use of the right-of-way by the authority, without the agreement expressly addressing future responsibility for the cost of necessary utility work, the authority must bear the cost of removal or relocation. This paragraph does not impair or restrict, and may not be used to interpret, the terms of any such agreement entered into before July 1, 2009.
(f) If the utility is an electric facility being relocated underground in order to enhance vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian safety and in which ownership of the electric facility to be placed underground has been transferred from a private to a public utility within the past 5 years, the department must incur all costs of the necessary utility work.
(g) An authority may bear the costs of utility work required to eliminate an unreasonable interference when the utility is not able to establish that it has a compensable property right in the particular property where the utility is located if:
1. The utility was physically located on the particular property before the authority acquired rights in the property;
2. The utility demonstrates that it has a compensable property right in adjacent properties along the alignment of the utility or, after due diligence, certifies that the utility does not have evidence to prove or disprove that it has a compensable property right in the particular property where the utility is located; and
3. The information available to the authority does not establish the relative priorities of the authority’s and the utility’s interests in the particular property.
(h) If a municipally owned utility or county-owned utility is located in a rural area of opportunity, as defined in s. 288.0656(2), and the department determines that the utility is unable, and will not be able within the next 10 years, to pay for the cost of utility work necessitated by a department project on the State Highway System, the department may pay, in whole or in part, the cost of such utility work performed by the department or its contractor.
(i) If the relocation of utility facilities is necessitated by the construction of a commuter rail service project or an intercity passenger rail service project and the cost of the project is eligible and approved for reimbursement by the Federal Government, then in that event the utility owning or operating such facilities located by permit on a department-owned rail corridor must perform any necessary utility relocation work upon notice from the department, and the department must pay the expense properly attributable to such utility relocation work in the same proportion as federal funds are expended on the commuter rail service project or an intercity passenger rail service project after deducting therefrom any increase in the value of a new facility and any salvage value derived from an old facility. In no event is the state required to use state dollars for such utility relocation work. This paragraph does not apply to any phase of the Central Florida Commuter Rail project, known as SunRail.
(j) If a utility is lawfully located within an existing and valid utility easement granted by recorded plat, regardless of whether such land was subsequently acquired by the authority by dedication, transfer of fee, or otherwise, the authority must bear the cost of the utility work required to eliminate an unreasonable interference. The authority shall pay the entire expense properly attributable to such work after deducting any increase in the value of a new facility and any salvage value derived from an old facility.
(k) If a county or municipal authority requires a provider of communications services which is subject to chapter 202 to relocate a facility used to provide such communications services, the service provider owning or operating such facility must initiate any necessary work upon notice from the authority. The county or municipal authority requiring such relocation is not responsible for paying the expense of such work, except as otherwise provided in this subsection. The service provider may apply for reimbursement of relocation expenses from the Utility Relocation Reimbursement Grant Program pursuant to s. 337.4031, subject to the availability of funds and in compliance with the requirements of the program. If funds are not available, the county or municipal authority requiring such relocation remains not responsible for paying the expense of such work, except as otherwise provided in this subsection.
(2) If such utility work is incidental to work to be done on such road or publicly owned rail corridor, the notice shall be given at the same time the contract for the work is advertised for bids, or no less than 30 days before the commencement of such work by the authority, whichever occurs later.
(3) Whenever a notice from the authority requires such utility work and the owner thereof fails to perform the work at his or her own expense within the time stated in the notice or such other time as agreed to by the authority and the utility owner, the authority shall proceed to cause the utility work to be performed. The expense thereby incurred shall be paid out of any money available therefor, and such expense shall, except as provided in subsection (1), be charged against the owner and levied and collected and paid into the fund from which the expense of such relocation was paid.
(4) Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(k), a department shall notify providers of communications services that are subject to chapter 202 which have permitted infrastructure within a planned or existing public right-of-way within 90 days after a project is added to the department’s project schedule which may require the provider to relocate its infrastructure for roadway improvements to increase safety or reduce congestion. For purposes of this subsection, the term “department” means the Department of Transportation or an agency of the state created under chapter 348 or chapter 349.
(a) The notification provided under this subsection must include an estimated project schedule and timeline, including the anticipated year of construction.
(b) Within 90 days after receipt of the notification, the provider shall respond to the department with an estimated timeframe and project cost for the relocation of the provider’s infrastructure. The response must include a draft relocation schedule within or adjacent to the existing or planned public right-of-way.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the department shall provide a reasonable offer for joint participation in relocation costs, so long as the provider initiates work within a mutually agreed upon timeframe and, if the infrastructure relocation is a result of roadway improvements within the public right-of-way to increase safety or reduce congestion and the impacted infrastructure was, at the time of notification under this subsection, installed within the past 7 state fiscal years, the department must incur at least 50 percent of the costs for relocation work as described in a joint participation agreement.
(d) This subsection may not be construed to prevent a department from pursuing the additional relocation processes, agreements, or payment options authorized under this section or to prevent a provider from using grant funds provided through other government sources to support all or a portion of the relocation costs.
History.—s. 129, ch. 29965, 1955; s. 1, ch. 57-135; s. 1, ch. 57-1978; ss. 23, 35, ch. 69-106; s. 143, ch. 84-309; s. 12, ch. 87-100; s. 28, ch. 94-237; s. 970, ch. 95-148; s. 25, ch. 99-385; s. 10, ch. 2009-85; s. 35, ch. 2012-174; s. 5, ch. 2014-169; s. 24, ch. 2015-2; s. 3, ch. 2016-44; s. 2, ch. 2025-122.
Note.—Former s. 338.19.

F.S. 337.403 on Google Scholar

F.S. 337.403 on CourtListener

Amendments to 337.403


Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 337.403

Total Results: 6  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Lee Cnty. Elec. Coop., Inc. v. City of Cape Coral, 159 So. 3d 126 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 8432, 2014 WL 2218972

...In the declaratory judgment proceeding, the City and LCEC filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The circuit court determined that the facts were. undisputed, and it ruled in the City’s favor based on the franchise agreement between the parties and on section 337.403(1), Florida Statutes (2005)....
...at 459 , 25 S.Ct. 471 No one contends that the City attempted to revoke the franchise. Accordingly, we reject LCEC’s contention that its property was taken without compensation in violation of the United States and Florida constitutions. II. The common law and section 337.403....
...n, of such public road or publicly owned rail corridor shall, upon 30 days’ written notice to the utility or its agent by the authority, be removed or relocated by such utility at its own expense except as provided in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c). § 337.403(1)....
...But a 1997 Attorney General’s opinion offers some guidance. See Op. Att’y Gen. Fla. 97-36 (1997). In that instance, the City of Cape Coral posed three questions to the Attorney General, two of them concerning the same franchise agreement at issue in this case and the cost of relocation pursuant to section 337.403. 1. Does a franchise agreement allowing a public utility to locate on a public easement with no provision for liability for relocation expenses preclude the application of section 337.403, Florida Statutes, when the city requires relocation? 2. Does section 337.403, Florida Statutes, apply to the relocation of all utilities or only those placed on easements or rights-of-way granted by the governing body? The Office of the Attorney General answered the first question in the negative. It then discussed the application of section 337.403, noting that the operative word in the statute was “road” and looking to section 334.03(23) of the Transportation Code for a definition of that term....
...The Attor *132 ney General noted that the Transportation Code also defined a “right-of-way” as land in which a “municipality owns the fee or has an easement devoted to or required for use as a transportation facility.” § 334.22. In his opinion, “section 337.403 applies only to roads and adjacent rights-of-way owned by a governing body in fee or in which the governing body has an easement.” We are not bound by an Attorney General’s opinion, but even if we accept the reasoning of this one, it does not answer the question presented in this case. The Attorney General defined a road for purposes of section 337.403, and we doubt that either the City or LCEC would dispute that roads exist in the intersection expanded in this case....
...But the statute addresses utilities “placed upon, under, over, or along” a road. It is undisputed that LCEC’s equipment was located in a six foot wide easement that bordered the public road. We have found no cases interpreting the “along” the road portion of the statute, 4 but the language of section 337.403 is clear....
...The utility lines at issue here were located “along” the road and they were “interfering” with the City’s “expansion” of the road. Under these facts, the statute’s plain terms required LCEC to pay the costs to relocate its lines to a different public utility easement. 5 But even if section 337.403 did not apply, LCEC would still be required to bear the relocation costs under the common law rule....
...the actual use of the property by the public). . Now numbered as § 34.91. . LCEC contends that language in the 1959 Attorney General’s opinion mentioned supra, 59-80, establishes that section 338.19, Florida Statutes (1959) — the predecessor to section 337.403 — applies only to utilities that located their facilities "over, on, or under" public roads....
...The opinion did not address the issue presented in this case, and it ignored the language of section 338.19, which, like the present statute, pertained to utilities “placed upon, under, over, or along any public road.” Opinion 59-80 is unpersuasive on this issue. . The legislature amended section 337.403 in 2012....
...12-174, § 35, at 2231-33, Laws of Fla. That amendment does not apply in this case, but it adds support to our decision that LCEC must pay the costs of relocation. For the first time, the statute contemplates a situation in which the government entity may bear the relocation costs. § 337.403(1)(g), Fla....
Copy

Florida Power Corp. v. Seminole Cnty., 579 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 1991).

Cited 3 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 286, 1991 Fla. LEXIS 717, 1991 WL 66662

...power lines underground, the county unequivocally declared that it would not do so. FPC sued the city and the county for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against the enforcement of the ordinances. FPC admitted that it was obligated under section 337.403(1), Florida Statutes (1989), to relocate the lines overhead within the new right of way at its expense....
...The county, which operates under a charter form of government, stresses its authority under article VIII, section 1(g) of the Florida Constitution, as well as section 125.01(3)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (1989). Both the city and the county rely heavily upon section 337.403(1), Florida Statutes (1989), which was cited by the circuit judge as authority for his ruling....
...ved in those cases. There is nothing in the stated rationale of those decisions that suggests there would have been a different result if the lines to be undergrounded were distribution rather than transmission lines. The circuit judge's reliance on section 337.403(1), Florida Statutes (1989), is misplaced....
...transmission facilities," the legislature has further weakened two of the contentions relied upon by the city and the county that were discussed earlier in this opinion. First, the language indicates that the words "removed or relocated" as used in section 337.403(1) were not intended to encompass the changing of overhead facilities to underground facilities....
Copy

Ago (Fla. Att'y Gen. 1997).

Published | Florida Attorney General Reports

...Repperger: On behalf of the city manager, you have asked substantially the following questions: 1. Does a franchise agreement allowing a public utility to locate on a public easement with no provision for liability for relocation expenses preclude the application of section 337.403 , Florida Statutes, when the city requires relocation? 2. Does section 337.403 , Florida Statutes, apply to the relocation of all utilities or only those placed on easements or rights-of-way granted by the governing body? 3. Are cable television facilities considered a utility subject to section 337.403 , Florida Statutes? In sum: 1. While a franchise agreement for placement of a public utility on a public easement creates a property right that may entitle the owner or holder to compensation when such right is dispossessed, section 337.403 , Florida Statutes, controls the assessment of relocation expenses when a utility must be moved for a reason prescribed therein. 2. Section 337.403 , Florida Statutes, applies only to the relocation of utilities placed upon, under, over, or along any public road or publicly owned rail corridor owned by a governing body in fee or in which the governing body has an easement. 3. While cable television is not specifically included in the definition of a utility subject to section 337.403 , Florida Statutes, there is nothing that grants such facilities greater protections than utilities enumerated therein and the definition is broad enough to encompass cable television....
...ls, and other public places of the [c]ity . . . ." You indicate, however, that the agreement does not address who will be responsible for relocation expenses when the city requires a relocation of electric facilities. In light of the requirements in section 337.403 , Florida Statutes, you question whether the utility or the city is responsible for relocation expenses. Section 337.403 , Florida Statutes, provides: "(1) Any utility heretofore or hereafter placed upon, under, over, or along any public road or publicly owned rail corridor that is found by the authority to be unreasonably interfering in any way with th...
...y. Accordingly, while a franchise agreement for placement of a public utility on a public easement creates a property right that may entitle the owner or holder to compensation when such right is dispossessed, the relocation of a utility pursuant to section 337.403 , Florida Statutes, for a reason prescribed therein does not constitute a taking for which the governing authority must pay. Question Two The plain language of section 337.403 (1), Florida Statutes, makes it applicable to "[a]ny utility heretofore or hereafter placed upon, under, over, or along any public road or publicly owned rail corridor ....
...The term includes the property or property rights, both real and personal, which have been or may be established by public bodies for the transportation of people and property from place to place." 12 Considering all of these definitions, it would appear that the rights-of-way or roads subject to section 337.403 , Florida Statutes, are those owned in fee or in which there is an easement held by a governing body....
...ntrol jurisdiction pursuant to Chapter 316 , Florida Statutes, the definition of a "street or highway" in that chapter is more expansive than the definition of a "public road" in the Florida Transportation Code. 13 Accordingly, it is my opinion that section 337.403 , Florida Statutes, applies only to roads and adjacent rights-of-way owned by a governing body in fee or in which the governing body has an easement....
...ent with the local governing body, the more prudent course would be to include relocation expense liability within the terms of the agreement. Accordingly, it is my opinion that cable television facilities are subject to the relocation provisions in section 337.403 , Florida Statutes. Sincerely, Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General RAB/tls 1 Section 337.403 (1)(a) provides for the payment of relocation of utilities by the state when relocation is necessary due to construction of a project on the federal-aid interstate system and the cost is approved for reimbursement by the federal government. Subsection (b) of s. 337.403 provides for a sharing of the cost of relocation by the Florida Department of Transpor-tation when a joint agreement is executed between the utility and the department....
...rt in the county in which the utility was relocated. 4 229 So.2d 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). 5 In Pinellas County v. General Telephone Company of Florida, the court was considering the application of ss. 338.17-338.21, Fla. Stat. (1969), the precursors to section 337.403 , Fla....
Copy

Liork, LLC v. Bh 150 Second Avenue, LLC, 241 So. 3d 920 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal

...2d DCA 2014) (“In the declaratory judgment proceeding, the City and LCEC filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The circuit court determined that the facts were undisputed, and it ruled in the City’s favor based on the franchise agreement between the parties and on section 337.403(1), Florida Statutes (2005). Our review of the summary judgment is de novo.”). Discussion 4 Ben Shimon contends the trial court erred in gran...
Copy

Florida Power & Light Co. v. Russell Eng'g, Inc., 96 So. 3d 1016 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 13569, 2012 WL 3326341

...In this case involving underground utilities interfering with a county road expansion project, the utility company appeals from the circuit court’s final judgment awarding damages to the county’s contractor for the costs incurred to avoid the interference. The utility company argues that sections 337.403 and 337.404, Florida Statutes (1999), provide the exclusive remedy for such interference situations, and the county failed to pursue that remedy....
...The contractor alleged that the utility company was negligent in failing to remove or relocate the duct bank which interfered with the project. The contractor sought to recover the additional costs incurred in remedying the interference. In response, the utility company argued that sections 337.403 and 337.404 provided the county with the exclusive remedy of requiring the interfering utilities to be removed or relocated before damages could be awarded....
...This appeal followed. The utility company argues that the circuit court erred in denying the motion for summary judgment and entering final judgment for the contractor on the negligence claim. As in the circuit court, the utility company contends that sections 337.403 and 337.404 provided the county with the exclusive remedy of requiring the interfering utilities to be removed or relocated before damages could be awarded, and because the county failed to pursue that remedy, summary judgment in its favor was appropriate....
...4th DCA 2011) (where a trial court’s conclusions following a non-jury trial are based upon alleged legal error, the standard of review is de novo) (citation omitted). We disagree with the utility company’s argument. The utility company has not cited any applicable case law supporting its argument that sections 337.403 and 337.404 provided the county with the exclusive remedy of requiring the interfering utilities to be removed or relocated before damages could be awarded....
...gard. Unless a statute unequivocally states that it changes the common law, or is so repugnant to the common law that the two cannot coexist, the statute will not be held to have changed the common law. Id. at 918 (citations omitted). Here, sections 337.403 and 337.404 do not unequivocally state that they change the common law, nor are those statutes so repugnant to the common law that the two cannot coexist. Section 337.403 provides, in pertinent part: (1) Any utility heretofore or hereafter placed ......
...right-of-way of a public road ... and the [utility company] fails to remove or [relocate] the same at [its] own expense to conform to the order within the time stated in the notice, the authority shall proceed to cause the utility to be removed.... § 337.403, Fla....
Copy

Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Florida Power & Light Co., 208 So. 3d 111 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).

Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 46 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20080, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 5953

...The County's ordinance did not specify who would pay the cost of placing the power lines underground, but the County stated that it would not do so. Id. FPC sued the City and the County for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, admitting it was obligated under section 337.403(1), Florida Statutes (1989), to relocate the lines overhead within the new right of way at its expense....
...gulate rates and service. Id. FPC argued that if the ordinances were upheld, similar ordinances would follow and that the cost of converting all of FPC's lines to underground lines would exceed $2.5 billion. Both the City and the County relied on section 337.403(1), Florida Statutes (1989), which the circuit judge cited as authority for his ruling....

This Florida statute resource is curated by Graham W. Syfert, Esq., a Jacksonville, Florida personal injury and workers' compensation attorney. For legal consultation, call 904-383-7448.