SIMON ROOFING AND SHEET METAL CORP., APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
FLORIDA DIVERSIFIED FILMS, INC., APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT

Fla. 3d DCA | 2012-03-07
Nos. 3D10-2379, 3D10-2455
Before CORTIÑAS, EMAS, and FERNANDEZ, JJ.
84 So. 3d 1086 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2012) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s Final Judgment. The appellant/cross-appellee Simon Roofing and Sheet Metal Corp. concedes on cross-appeal that the trial court erred in denying appellee/cross-appellant Florida Diversified Films, Ine.’s request for prejudgment interest. See Bosem v. Musa Holdings, Inc., 46 So.3d 42 (Fla.2010). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying prejudgment interest and remand the cause to the trial court with instructions to award appellee/cross-appel-lant prejudgment interest in the amount of $530,646.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with instructions.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Volusia Cnty. v. Joynt, 179 So. 3d 448 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)
    …a verdict in favor of the non-moving party.” Benitez v. Joseph Trucking, Inc., 68 So. 3d 428, 430 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (citing Etheredge v. Walt Disney World, Co., 999 So. 2d 669, 671 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)). Our review is de novo. Seibert v. Riccucci, 84 So. 3d 1086, 1088 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (citing Andrews v. Direct Mail Express, Inc., 1 So. 3d 1192, 1193 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)). We begin our analysis with Joynt’s claim for loss of future earning capacity. On this claim, the jury awarded $500,000 in damages. Flo…
  • Fla. Diversified Films, Inc. v. Simon Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., 118 So. 3d 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
    …vor of FDF, but reversed the trial court’s denial of FDF’s request for prejudgment interest, and remanded with instructions to award prejudgment interest to FDF in a specific amount. Simon Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp. v. Fla. Diversified Films, Inc., 84 So. 3d 1086 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). Thereafter, this Court addressed FDF’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees, in which FDF asserted it was entitled to an award of appellate attorney’s fees because the final judgment was at least twenty-five percent greater than…
  • Fonger v. Nall, 286 So. 3d 332 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw