WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — A West Palm Beach man is suing a local dealership after his nearly $40,000 personal watercraft disappeared from their service lot three years ago, yet he continues making monthly payments on the missing vehicle.
WATCH BELOW: 'Three years later, and I'm still dealing with the same payments, and no jet ski,' Jose Ortega tells WPTV
Jose Ortega filed a lawsuit against Broward Motorsports, claiming negligent safeguarding and security. He's demanding more than $38,000 in damages after his Sea-Doo watercraft vanished from the dealership's Okeechobee Boulevard location in 2023.
"I trusted them completely, bringing my jet ski there," Ortega said. "I bought it from them, because I trust him."
According to the lawsuit, Ortega purchased the 2022 Sea-Doo from Broward Motorsports in November 2022, along with a 36-month maintenance plan costing an additional $1,400.
"They told me, just bring it back, and we will do everything else. We will change the oil, we'll keep all the maintenance, so I said okay," Ortega said.
The complaint states that in August 2023, Ortega delivered his watercraft and trailer to Broward Motorsports for service and maintenance. By October, the lawsuit claims he was informed the property was missing and presumed stolen from the facility.
"It was gone. They searched around. They told me they would call me and let me know, and three days later, they said that it was stolen," Ortega said. "The first time I brought it back for service."
Ortega filed a police report with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office. Three years later, he continues making $441 monthly payments on the missing watercraft.
"Every month I make my payments, because I don't want to ruin my credit," Ortega said. "I think it's not fair. I think it's very irresponsible and not fair."
Attorney Robert Gonzalez filed the lawsuit on Ortega's behalf, claiming Broward Motorsports, "knew or should have known that valuable customer watercraft stored on its premises were at risk of theft and required reasonable safeguarding."
"At a very minimum, the law recognizes that that person or that business should be in a position of trust to make sure that that thing doesn't go missing," Gonzalez said. "And what we have here is it just vanished with no explanation. Police report was filed, no access to security cameras, no insurance coverage that has been disclosed."
When contacted for comment, Broward Motorsports' Director of Operations JJ Sciarrino declined to speak on camera but confirmed the company's security cameras do not face the area where a theft would have been captured. He also said the company does not carry insurance that would cover such a loss.
"Businesses here are not required to have garage keepers liability. That's a special insurance policy that would protect a missing vehicle or a missing item," Gonzalez said.
If a business doesn't have garage keepers liability insurance and the owner doesn't have personal insurance on the item — which Ortega doesn't — the customer is left at the mercy of the business to either compensate them or face legal action.
"I want to be very clear, this is not an attack on one business or any business. This is really a call for fairness," Gonzalez said.
Ortega continues waiting for answers and accountability.
"I mean, it's heartbreaking. Three years later, and I'm still dealing with the same payments, and no jet ski," Ortega said.
Broward Motorsports declined to comment pending litigation. Gonzalez said the case serves as a reminder for consumers to ask about security measures and insurance coverage before dropping off property for service.
Legal proceedings continue
Both parties have filed documents in the case. Broward Motorsports has filed a motion to dismiss the case, which the judge has not ruled on yet.
Ortega filed a motion for clerk's default and an objection arguing the defendant's request for an extension of time was untimely. The case had previously gone into default and was closed, but it was later reopened by agreed order, allowing an amended complaint. After the amended filing, the defendant appeared and moved to dismiss. The clerk declined to enter a new default, leaving the judge to decide whether the timing issues matter and whether the amended complaint survives dismissal.
The judge still needs to rule on whether the late timing matters and whether the amended complaint survives dismissal.
This story was reported on-air by a journalist and has been converted to this platform with the assistance of AI. Our editorial team verifies all reporting on all platforms for fairness and accuracy.