DON LUIGI'S RISTORANTE, INC., APPELLANT/CROSS APPELLEE,
v.
INDEPENDENT FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Don Luigi's Ristorante sued its fire insurance carrier for damages after a fire destroyed its business. The jury returned a verdict in appellant's favor, but the court reversed the damages award due to lack of legal justification for the amount, while affirming the attorney's fees award and remanding for a new trial on damages.
The damages award must be reversed and remanded for a new trial because there was no legal explanation or justification for the jury to award less than the sums testified to by the carrier's experts. The award of attorney's fees is affirmed. The award of prejudgment interest is vacated without prejudice pending retrial of the damages issue.
[1] A jury's award of damages may be reversed and remanded for a new trial when there is no legal justification for the jury to award less than the sums testified to by the d…
[2] An award of attorney's fees is within the discretion of the trial court upon consideration of appropriate criteria.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“From a detailed survey, it does not appear from the record that there was any legal explanation or justification for the jury to award less than the sums testified to by the carrier's experts for which it vouched.”
Establishes the basis for reversing the damages award—lack of legal support for the jury's verdict amount.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant's business was destroyed by fire. Appellant sued its fire insurance carrier for damages. The case was tried before a jury, which returned a …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Breach Of Insurance Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant’s business was destroyed by fire and it sued its fire insurance carrier for damages. The case was tried before a jury. It returned a verdict in favor of appellant. Appellant was dissatisfied with the dollar amount of the verdict and it sought a new trial on the issue of damages in the trial court and here in this appeal. The carrier cross appeals the award of prejudgment interest to appellant.
As an aside, we affirm the award of attorney’s fees to appellant. The amount was well within the discretion of the trial court upon consideration of the appropriate criteria. Pfohl v. Pfohl, 345 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
As to damages, each party produced expert witnesses and detailed appraisals as to the amount of damages suffered by appellant. The amount awarded was for less than the appraisals produced by the carrier and, of course, greatly less than the appellant’s appraisal. From a detailed survey, it does not appear from the record that there was any legal explanation or justification for the jury to award less than the sums testified to by the carrier’s experts for which it vouched. We reverse the award of damages and remand for a new trial on that sole issue. See Dade County v. Renedo, 147 So. 2d 313 (Fla.1962); Anderson v. Chirogianis, 384 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); and Canal Authority v. Ocala Manufacturing Ice & Packing Co., 253 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971).
As to the award of prejudgment interest it must be vacated without prejudice due to the fact that the damage issue must be re-tried. We do record our view that the interest question is governed by English & American Insurance Co. v. Swain Groves, Inc., 218 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); Broward County v. Sattler, 400 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Jockey Club, Inc. v. Bleemer, Levine & Associates Architects & Designers, Inc., 413 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Bergen Brunswig Corp. v. State, Dept. of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 415 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
Reversed in part; affirmed in part; and remanded for new trial on damages only.
WALDEN and BARKETT, JJ., and GREEN, OLIVER L., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shores Supply Co. v. AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co., Inc., 524 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…. We must conclude that the jury’s verdict was the result of some mistake, misapprehension, or oversight. See Timmy Woods Beverly Hills, Ltd. v. Greenwald, 475 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Don Luigi’s Ristorante, Inc. v. Independent Fire Ins. Co., 460 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Dybalski v. Nichols, 227 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969); Duquette v. Hindman, 152 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963). The trial court erred in not granting Shores’ motion to amend the judgment. Thus, the final judgment in favor of S…
Authorities Cited
- Bergen Brunswig Corp. & Health Application Sys., Inc. v. State of Fla. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 415 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- English & Am. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Swain Groves, Inc., 218 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Pfohl v. Pfohl, 345 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Jockey Club, Inc. v. Bleemer, 413 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- The Canal Auth. of the State of Fla. v. Ocala Mfg. ICE & Packing Co., 253 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Anderson v. Chirogianis, 384 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Dade Cnty. v. Renedo, 147 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 1962)
- Broward Cnty. v. Sattler, 400 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- McCLUSKEY v. Wittenberg, 400 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)