Florida Statute 677.204 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XXXIX
COMMERCIAL RELATIONS

Chapter 677
UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE: DOCUMENTS OF TITLE

View Entire Chapter

677.204 Duty of care; contractual limitation of warehouse’s liability.—

(1) A warehouse is liable for damages for loss of or injury to the goods caused by its failure to exercise care with regard to the goods that a reasonably careful person would exercise under similar circumstances. Unless otherwise agreed, the warehouse is not liable for damages that could not have been avoided by the exercise of that care.

(2) Damages may be limited by a term in the warehouse receipt or storage agreement limiting the amount of liability in case of loss or damage and setting forth a specific liability per article or item, value per unit of weight, or any other negotiated limitation of damages as agreed upon between the parties beyond which the warehouse is not liable. Such a limitation is not effective with respect to the warehouse’s liability for conversion to its own use. On request of the bailor in a record at the time of signing the storage agreement or within a reasonable time after receipt of the warehouse receipt, the warehouse’s liability may be increased on part or all of the goods covered by the storage agreement or the warehouse receipt. In this event, increased rates may be charged based on an increased valuation of the goods.

(3) Reasonable provisions as to the time and manner of presenting claims and commencing actions based on the bailment may be included in the warehouse receipt or storage agreement.

(4) This section does not impair or repeal any statute which imposes a higher responsibility upon the warehouse or invalidates contractual limitations which would be permissible under this chapter.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 623, ch. 97-102; s. 26, ch. 2010-131.

Note.—s. 7-204, U.C.C.; supersedes ss. 678.03, 678.20.

F.S. 677.204 on Google Scholar

F.S. 677.204 on CourtListener

Amendments to 677.204

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 677.204

Total Results: 3 | Sort by: Relevance | Newest First

Copy

Millennium Partners, L.P. v. Colmar Storage, LLC, 494 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2007).

Cited 41 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 74 Fed. R. Serv. 140, 63 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 550, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 18687, 2007 WL 2245780

...property was delivered to the bailee in good condition and that it was damaged while it was in the care, custody, and control of bailee.” Parker v. Miracle Strip Boat & Motors Headquarters, Inc., 341 So. 2d 197, 198 (Fla. 1976); F LA. S TAT. §§ 677.204 and 677.403 (2007). We review a district court's denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law de novo, applying the same standards as the district court....

...careful person would exercise under like circumstances but unless otherwise agreed he or she is not liable for damages which could not have been avoided by the exercise of such care. F LA. S TAT. A NN. § 677.204(1) (West 2007). Colmar stored perishable commodities in its facility....

Copy

Lonray, Inc. v. Azucar, Inc., & Fireman's Ins. Co. of New Jersey, 775 F.2d 1521 (11th Cir. 1985).

Cited 4 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 42 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 537, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 24012

...which provides that a warehouseman shall not be held liable for any loss which does not result from his failure to exercise such care in regard to stored goods "as a reasonably careful man would exercise under like circumstances ..." See, Fla.Stat. § 677.204(1) (1979)....

Copy

Breezy Bay, Inc. v. Industria Maquiladora Mexicana, 361 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).

Cited 4 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16405

...Thus, IMM made out a prima facie case. As another point on appeal, Breezy Bay argues that the trial court erred in finding that the risk of loss for the destroyed garments fell upon it. Breezy Bay's argument that IMM is liable for the loss of the garments destroyed under Section 677.204, Florida Statutes (1977) [warehouseman's liability] or under Section 672.509, Florida Statutes (1977) [risk of loss between seller and buyer] is untenable because the relationship between Breezy Bay and IMM simply does not fall under either one of these categories....

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.