Prejudgment Interest

2,315 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 3 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Allstate Ins. Co. v. Martinez
  790 So. 2d 1151· Fla. 3d DCA· 2001-07-11 ·cited 16×
  Allstate Insurance Company appealed a judgment confirming an insurance appraisal award in a Hurricane Andrew damage claim, challenging both the appraisal process methodology and the trial court's award of prejudgment interest and costs. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed
• Baker Protective Servs. v. FP Inc. & Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md.
  659 So. 2d 1120· Fla. 3d DCA· 1995-07-19 ·cited 16×
  Baker Protective Services appeals the denial of attorney's fees in a breach of contract action against FP Incorporated and surety Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, while the defendants cross-appeal the denial of their sanctions. The court reverses as to FP Incorporated base
• Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Pa. Nat'l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co.
  639 So. 2d 41· Fla. 5th DCA· 1994-04-15 ·cited 16×
  Two insurance carriers disputed coverage limits under errors and omissions policies after settling a third-party claim by a surety company. The court held that the ambiguous term "claim" in the primary policy should be construed against the drafter to afford greater coverage, res
• Danis Indus. Corp. & Seaboard Sur. Co. v. Ground Improvement Techniques, Inc.
  629 So. 2d 985· Fla. 5th DCA· 1993-12-23 ·cited 16×
  GIT, a subcontractor, obtained an arbitration award against Danis Industries and its surety Seaboard, and sought attorney's fees under Florida statutes. The court affirmed GIT's entitlement to recover attorney's fees but reversed and remanded the calculation of both the fee amoun
• Quesinberry v. Life Ins. Co. OF N. Am.
  987 F.2d 1017· 4th Cir.· 1993-02-12 ·cited 16×
  The court should not reach the issue of the appropriate scope of review for ERISA plan administrator decisions when plans do not vest discretionary powers.
• A. Kush & Assocs. v. Am. States Ins. Co.
  927 F.2d 929· 7th Cir.· 1991-02-25 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the jury's award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, finding that the insurer's actions did not constitute an unjustifiable refusal to defend and that certain additional damages claims were not recoverable.
• State OF Colo. v. Idarado Mining Co.
  916 F.2d 1486· 10th Cir.· 1990-10-11 ·cited 16×
  The court held that CERCLA § 121(e)(2) does not authorize a state to seek injunctive relief to enforce its independently selected cleanup plan when the federal government is not involved.
• Tech. Consultant Servs., Inc. v. Lakewood Pipe OF Tex., Inc.
  861 F.2d 1357· 5th Cir.· 1988-12-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Texas "wrong court" saving statute applied, preventing the statute of limitations from barring the claim, and that the jury's finding of third-party beneficiary status was supported by substantial evidence. However, the court reversed the prejudgment inter
• Diggs v. Pepsi-Cola Metro. Bottling Co., Inc.
  861 F.2d 914· 6th Cir.· 1988-11-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that prejudgment interest on future damage awards should be calculated from the time each installment payment is due, or by reducing the award to present value at the time of the complaint, to avoid double counting.
• The United States v. W. States Mech. Contractors, Inc.
  834 F.2d 1533· 10th Cir.· 1987-11-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that prejudgment interest is recoverable by a subcontractor under the Miller Act when the amount owed is ascertainable from the contract, even if the recovery theory is quantum meruit. The court also affirmed the denial of attorneys' fees for Sanchez and the reject
• N. Natural GAS Co. v. O.W. Hegler
  818 F.2d 730· 10th Cir.· 1987-05-13 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the trial court's application of the 'work-back' method for valuing helium, finding no abuse of discretion in its determinations of investment, costs, and interest rates.
• Brown v. United Ins. Co. OF Am.
  807 F.2d 1239· 5th Cir.· 1987-01-20 ·cited 16×
  A motion for clarification of a judgment, filed after post-judgment motions were denied and the original judgment remained unchanged, does not vitiate a previously filed notice of appeal.
• Haas v. Atlantic Richfield
  799 F.2d 1011· 5th Cir.· 1986-09-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that Louisiana Civil Code Article 2317 applies to platform owners for damages caused by things in their custody, and that comparative fault can apply to supervised employees in strict liability cases.
• Ryan Walsh Stevedoring Co., Inc. v. James Marine Servs., Inc.
  792 F.2d 489· 5th Cir.· 1986-06-18 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the district court's award of damages, including loss of use and prejudgment interest, finding no clear error in the factual determinations and applying established maritime law principles.
• Shiley, Inc. v. Bentley Labs., Inc.
  794 F.2d 1561· Fed. Cir.· 1986-06-16 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the jury's findings of non-infringement, non-invalidity, and no inequitable conduct were supported by substantial evidence, and that the district court did not err in its rulings on damages, willful infringement, or d
• Petersen v. The Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co.
  784 F.2d 732· 6th Cir.· 1986-02-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under the Jones Act and that the jury could properly determine seaman status. Prejudgment interest was not awarded as the jury's verdict did not specify the basis for damages.
• McNEESE v. Reading & Bates Drilling Co.
  749 F.2d 270· 5th Cir.· 1985-01-02 ·cited 16×
  The appellate court reviewed orders taxing costs and awarding attorney's fees, and denying a motion to enter judgment on a jury verdict favorable to the defendants, after a mistrial was declared during the trial.
• The Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. The Cnty. OF Erie & the Erie Cnty. Med. Ctr.
  751 F.2d 79· 2d Cir.· 1984-12-12 ·cited 16×
  A district court has the power to award prejudgment interest against a municipal employer in an Equal Pay Act case, and the use of the adjusted prime rate is within its discretion.
• Devex Corp. v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  749 F.2d 1020· 3d Cir.· 1984-11-28 ·cited 16×
  The court should reverse the district court's holding that Devex is not entitled to collect interest on delinquent postjudgment and prejudgment interest payments.
• Satterwhite v. Smith
  744 F.2d 1380· 9th Cir.· 1984-10-10 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding constructive discharge and affirmed the judgment, but reduced the back pay award by $5,000.
• Earnhardt v. The Commonwealth OF Puerto RICO
  744 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1984-09-17 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding the evidence supported the conclusion of discriminatory discharge and that the denial of prejudgment interest and fringe benefits was not an abuse of discretion.
• Am. Anodco, Inc. v. Reynolds Metals Co.
  743 F.2d 417· 6th Cir.· 1984-09-12 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge believes the cancellation clause gave Reynolds the right to terminate the contract and that Reynolds did not waive reliance on it.
• Int'l Ass'n OF Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, Local Union NO. 103, AFL-CIO v. Higdon Constr. Co., Inc.
  739 F.2d 280· 7th Cir.· 1984-07-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the magistrate's determination of the date of repudiation of the prehire agreement was not clearly erroneous, and the Union could enforce monetary obligations accrued before repudiation.
• RAY E. Friedman & Co. v. Jenkins
  738 F.2d 251· 8th Cir.· 1984-06-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court's judgment was correct, affirming the award against the appellant, as any errors were harmless and the appellant's counterclaims and defenses were without merit.
• Stevens v. F/V Bonnie Doon
  731 F.2d 1433· 9th Cir.· 1984-05-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not err in taking new evidence on damages after remand and in fixing damages based on a later repair estimate, as long as deterioration damage was excluded and the date of valuation was practical.
• Behlar v. Smith
  719 F.2d 950· 8th Cir.· 1983-10-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court's findings of sex discrimination were not clearly erroneous, but remanded the issue of harassment damages for further findings.
• Goodpasture, Inc. v. M/V Pollux
  688 F.2d 1003· 5th Cir.· 1982-10-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the law of the case doctrine foreclosed further review of the title issue and affirmed the trial court's damage award for conversion, with a minor modification for carrying charges.
• Shook & Fletcher Insulation Co. v. Cent. Rigging & Contracting Corp.
  684 F.2d 1383· 11th Cir.· 1982-09-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying prejudgment interest and in refusing to apply the amended statutory post-judgment interest rate, reversing that part of the decision.
• Earnest v. Se. Fid. Ins. Co.
  407 So. 2d 995· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-12-15 ·cited 16×
  Linda Earnest appealed an order denying her attorney's fees and pre-judgment interest in an insurance coverage dispute with Southeastern Fidelity Insurance Company. The court affirmed the denial of pre-judgment interest but reversed the denial of attorney's fees, finding Earnest
• Gen. Facilities, Inc. v. Nat'l Marine Serv., Inc.
  664 F.2d 672· 8th Cir.· 1981-11-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding prejudgment interest on direct damages at 15.75% and in calculating lost profits, nor was it an abuse of discretion to deny prejudgment interest on lost profits.
• Vicon, Inc. v. CMI Corp.
  657 F.2d 768· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not err in applying Tennessee law to the misrepresentation claim, finding sufficient evidence of misrepresentation and damages, and did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion or prejudgment interest.
• Automated Med. Labs., Inc. v. Armour Pharm. Co.
  629 F.2d 1118· 5th Cir.· 1980-11-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the statute of frauds defense was waived, the Phoenix agreement was a binding contract, and Auto was entitled to prejudgment interest. However, the calculation of damages for Auto's breach of contract needed to be remanded for recalculation.
• Dallas-Fort Worth Reg'l Airport Bd. v. Combustion Equip. Assocs., Inc.
  623 F.2d 1032· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-13 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Board's termination of the contract was lawful, but remanded the issue of liquidated damages due to conflicting jury findings. Other claims were affirmed.
• Nat'l Sur. Corp. v. Charles Carter & Co., Inc.
  621 F.2d 739· 5th Cir.· 1980-07-15 ·cited 16×
  The appellate court affirmed the denial of prejudgment interest because its prior mandate precluded such an award, and it declined to reform the mandate.
• The First Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. OF Okla. City v. Iowa Beef Processors, Inc.
  626 F.2d 764· 10th Cir.· 1980-07-14 ·cited 16×
  A secured party's conditional consent to sell collateral, even if conditioned on receiving proceeds, cuts off the security interest if the buyer is in the ordinary course of business. A buyer's claim of set-off is subordinate to a perfected security interest in the proceeds.
• Newburger v. Gross
  611 F.2d 423· 2d Cir.· 1979-11-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the partnership's business continued after partner withdrawals, precluding liquidation-basis accounting, and affirmed most accounting adjustments while reversing on the interest rate for prejudgment interest.
• United States v. The M/V ZOE Colocotroni
  602 F.2d 12· 1st Cir.· 1979-06-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that prejudgment interest was properly awarded from the date the bill was sent, not the date expenses were incurred, and that attorney's fees were not recoverable by the United States under 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
• Duffer v. Am. Home Assurance Co.
  512 F.2d 793· 5th Cir.· 1975-05-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the insured's travel was not 'every day travel to and from work' and that the statutory penalty and attorney's fees should be taxed as costs, not included in the judgment.
• Mid-American Transp. Co., Inc. v. Cargo Carriers, Inc.
  480 F.2d 1071· 8th Cir.· 1973-06-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages for the loss of use of its damaged barge and prejudgment interest, as the trial court erred in denying these claims.
• Buono Sales, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corp.
  449 F.2d 715· 3d Cir.· 1971-09-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in calculating damages by failing to account for profits plaintiff gained from expanded Plymouth sales after the DeSoto discontinuation, and remanded for a recalculation. It affirmed the dismissal of the tortious interference and statu
• United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Empire State Bank
  448 F.2d 360· 8th Cir.· 1971-09-02 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the insurer is liable for losses due to employee dishonesty discovered within the policy period, but statutory penalties for vexatious refusal to pay were not warranted due to close questions of fact and law.
• United States v. Foster Wheeler Corp.
  447 F.2d 100· 2d Cir.· 1971-07-02 ·cited 16×
  The court held that prejudgment interest is not recoverable under the False Claims Act because the Act's specified damages and forfeitures are intended to make the government whole.
• Cnty. Asphalt, Inc. v. The Lewis Welding & Eng'g Corp.
  444 F.2d 372· 2d Cir.· 1971-06-11 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the jury's general verdict and answers to special interrogatories were consistent, and the exclusion of consequential damages was not unconscionable as a matter of law.
• Glens Falls Ins. Co. v. Danville Motors, Inc.
  333 F.2d 187· 6th Cir.· 1964-06-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district judge's findings of negligence were not clearly erroneous and that the admission of safety standards was not reversible error, but affirmed the denial of pre-judgment interest.
• Clarke Baridon, Inc. v. Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp.
  311 F.2d 389· 4th Cir.· 1962-12-28 ·cited 16×
  A subcontractor's claim for 'excess labor' costs is foreclosed by a contract provision binding parties to determinations made between the prime contractor and the owner, especially when a prior court ruling affirmed this interpretation. Profit cannot be recovered on damages award
• Conway v. Conway
  111 So. 3d 925· Fla. 1st DCA· 2013-04-03 ·cited 15×
  Elizabeth Ann Conway appealed a trial court's decision in a marital settlement agreement enforcement action, challenging the denial of prejudgment interest and attorney's fees on an additional alimony award. The appellate court affirmed the $31,850.85 additional alimony award but
• Genser v. The Reef Condo. Ass'n, Inc.
  100 So. 3d 760· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-11-07 ·cited 15×
  The Gensers appeal an order awarding attorney's fees and costs to the Reef Condominium Association after the Association prevailed in a dispute over the Gensers' violation of condominium rules. The appellate court reverses because the trial court failed to calculate the total jud
• Brower-Eger v. Noon
  994 So. 2d 1239· Fla. 4th DCA· 2008-11-19 ·cited 15×
  A demand for judgment served on multiple parties is fatally flawed if it fails to allocate the settlement amount among each party.
• RDR Computer Consulting Corp. v. Eurodirect, Inc.
  884 So. 2d 1053· Fla. 2d DCA· 2004-10-15 ·cited 15×
  RDR Computer Consulting Corporation appealed a judgment entered in its favor, challenging the trial court's denial of prejudgment interest and attorneys' fees. The Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed both denials, holding that prejudgment interest was properly awarda
• Franz Edward Mitchell v. Coleman
  868 So. 2d 639· Fla. 2d DCA· 2004-03-17 ·cited 15×
  Mitchell appeals a charging lien judgment imposed in favor of his attorney Coleman for fees in his dissolution case. The court reverses in part because the lien's scope was too broad, not being limited to property actually recovered through the attorney's efforts, and remands for