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

• Wolfe v. AETNA Ins. Co. & Ricker-Horn, Inc.
  436 So. 2d 997· Fla. 5th DCA· 1983-08-04 ·cited 13×
  Wolfe appealed from a judgment awarding him damages for negligence against his insurance broker Ricker-Horn and insurer Aetna after a tornado destroyed his Executive Suites Motel buildings. The court reversed the directed verdict on Wolfe's breach of contract claim, finding jury
• B.V. Bureau Wijsmuller v. The United States
  702 F.2d 333· 2d Cir.· 1983-03-02 ·cited 13×
  The court held that applying an 'equitable uplift' to a salvage award to account for inflation was a proper exercise of the district court's discretion, even when the award was against the United States.
• Posner v. Flink
  393 So. 2d 1140· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-02-03 ·cited 13×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed that prejudgment interest may be awarded in contract actions on unliquidated damages, but reversed the 10% rate applied by the trial court and remanded for recalculation at the statutorily mandated 6% rate. The court also reversed the
• Rosa v. The Ins. Co. OF the State OF Pa.
  421 F.2d 390· 9th Cir.· 1970-01-21 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the insurer was liable for the loss of the vessel, skiff, and cargo, and that the award of pre-judgment interest was not an abuse of discretion.
• First Green Indus. a.s. v. Solar Dairy LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-09-24 ·cited 12×
  The court recommended granting the petitioner's motion for final default judgment, confirming the international arbitration award and awarding damages, interest, and ordering the respondent to complete a debtor information form.
• Byars v. THE Coca-Cola Co.
  517 F.3d 1256· 11th Cir.· 2008-02-22 ·cited 12×
  The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's judgment regarding "any occupation" benefits and the amount of "own occupation" benefits, remanding for further proceedings. The court affirmed the denial of statutory penalties and prejudgment interest, and the denial of reinstat
• Lombardo v. Haige
  971 So. 2d 1037· Fla. 2d DCA· 2008-01-16 ·cited 12×
  Lombardo, a landlord, challenged a circuit court order that dismissed his appeal of an attorneys' fees judgment on timeliness grounds. The District Court of Appeal treated the circuit court's dismissal as a mandamus issue and granted relief, holding that Lombardo's appeal was tim
• George v. GTE Directories Corp.
  114 F. Supp. 2d 1281· M.D. Fla.· 2000-08-28 ·cited 12×
  The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs, granted the motion for prejudgment interest, and granted the defendant's motion for an extension of time.
• Mark and Barbara Okun v. Litwin Sec., Inc.
  652 So. 2d 387· Fla. 3d DCA· 1995-02-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that parties are entitled to prejudgment interest on an arbitration award from the date of the award until it is confirmed as a judgment, and post-judgment interest from the date of confirmation until satisfaction.
• Sciandra v. First Union Nat'l Bank of Fla.
  638 So. 2d 1009· Fla. 2d DCA· 1994-06-15 ·cited 12×
• Haisfield v. ACP Fla. Holdings, Inc.
  629 So. 2d 963· Fla. 4th DCA· 1993-12-22 ·cited 12×
  Haisfield filed a wrongful lis pendens against real property in a contract dispute with Peabey, and the trial court awarded Peabey over $5.9 million in damages. The court reversed and remanded to apply the proper damages calculation method—comparing the property's fair market val
• Underwriters AT Lloyd's London & Cos. listed on C.A. Hansen Corp. Cover No. 5H04/224 v. Millar
  627 So. 2d 1188· Fla. 4th DCA· 1993-11-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that post-judgment interest cannot accrue on prejudgment interest, but prejudgment interest should be awarded for the period between when payment was due and when it was made.
• Pine Ridge AT Haverhill Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Hovnanian OF Palm Beach II, Inc.
  629 So. 2d 151· Fla. 4th DCA· 1993-06-16 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the judgment on construction defect damages but reversed the denial of prejudgment interest from the turnover date and the award of attorney's fees, holding that the jury verdict implicitly fixed the date of loss.
• Drennan v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  977 F.2d 246· 6th Cir.· 1992-10-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying prejudgment interest and in awarding attorney's fees.
• In re Amendments to the Florida Small Claims Rules
  601 So. 2d 1201· Fla.· 1992-07-16 ·cited 12×
  The Florida Supreme Court approved amendments to the Florida Small Claims Rules recommended by the Small Claims Rules Committee, including changes to streamline service methods, add optional enforcement procedures to judgments, and establish a standard settlement form for install
• Chrysler Motors Corp. v. Int'l Union, Allied Indus. Workers OF Am., AFL-CIO
  959 F.2d 685· 7th Cir.· 1992-04-03 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the district court's enforcement of the arbitration award, finding that reinstating an employee who committed sexual harassment did not violate public policy, and denied requests for prejudgment interest and attorney's fees.
• Charles Buzbee & Sons, Inc. v. Falkner
  585 So. 2d 1190· Fla. 2d DCA· 1991-09-20 ·cited 12×
  This case concerns whether a farmer was entitled to prejudgment interest on damages awarded for a crop destroyed by herbicide drift. The appellate court held that prejudgment interest should have been awarded from the date the loss was liquidated, not from the date of the verdict
• Therese A. Farber v. Massillon Bd. OF Educ.
  917 F.2d 1391· 6th Cir.· 1990-12-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court erred in remitting the jury's ADEA award, denying front pay and appointment without sufficient justification, and improperly dismissing the § 1983 claim. The court also found clear error in the Title VII findings regarding pretext.
• Orduna S.A. v. Zen-Noh Grain Corp.
  913 F.2d 1149· 5th Cir.· 1990-10-05 ·cited 12×
  A charter party's safe berth clause imposes a duty of due diligence on the charterer to select a safe berth, not a warranty of safety. The district court abused its discretion in denying prejudgment interest.
• City OF Cape Coral v. Water Servs. OF Am., Inc.
  567 So. 2d 510· Fla. 2d DCA· 1990-09-21 ·cited 12×
  The City of Cape Coral appeals a summary judgment awarding Water Services of America $1.17 million in damages for lost profits, bid preparation costs, and prejudgment interest based on promissory estoppel after the City disqualified WSA's bid for a water treatment facility contra
• Kalman v. The Berlyn Corp.
  914 F.2d 1473· Fed. Cir.· 1990-09-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion to amend the pleadings to add PDL as a plaintiff, and that the district court did not err in its findings of infringement, calculation of damages, or denial of enhanced damages and attorney fees.
• In re Merritt Logan, Inc. v. Fleming Cos., Inc.
  901 F.2d 349· 3d Cir.· 1990-04-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that lost profits are recoverable for a new business if proven with reasonable certainty, and that all sellers participating in product distribution are liable for breach of warranty. The court also affirmed the denial of a mistrial due to late discovery.
• I.A.M. Nat'l Pension Fund v. Slyman Indus., Inc.
  901 F.2d 127· D.C. Cir.· 1990-04-10 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the MPPAA time limits for contesting withdrawal liability were not equitably tolled by the employer's bankruptcy, and that liquidated damages under ERISA do not extend to post-judgment interest.
• Boyle v. Pool Offshore Co.
  893 F.2d 713· 5th Cir.· 1990-02-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the jury's verdict was supported by substantial evidence, and the trial court did not err in denying motions for directed verdict, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or new trial. However, the award of prejudgment interest on future damages was vacated and
• Nucor Corp. v. Neb. Pub. Power Dist.
  891 F.2d 1343· 8th Cir.· 1989-12-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that damages are too speculative and not supported by Nebraska case law when a rate schedule is found unfair, unreasonable, and discriminatory, and that the appropriate remedy is to remand for a hearing to determine fair rates.
• United Food & Commercial Workers v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
  889 F.2d 940· 10th Cir.· 1989-11-17 ·cited 12×
  The arbitrator's award did not draw its essence from the party's submission of issues, as the submission did not include union liability for remedies.
• Lovejoy Elecs., Inc. v. O'Berto
  873 F.2d 1001· 7th Cir.· 1989-04-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the parol evidence rule does not bar evidence of promissory fraud and that the Illinois dead man's statute, as applied through Federal Rule of Evidence 601, did not bar O'Berto's testimony due to ambiguity in his deposition regarding witness presence.
• Ross-Berger Cos., Inc. v. The Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y OF THE United States
  872 F.2d 1331· 7th Cir.· 1989-04-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that collateral estoppel properly precluded the defendant from relitigating issues of agency and lease validity previously decided against it, and that the award of prejudgment interest was not an abuse of discretion.
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Rocket OIL Co.
  865 F.2d 1158· 10th Cir.· 1989-01-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying prejudgment interest and correctly set the commencement date for postjudgment interest from the judgment on remand.
• Laborers' Pension Tr. Fund v. Sidney Weinberger Homes, Inc.
  872 F.2d 702· 6th Cir.· 1988-12-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the corporate veil of Weinberger Homes could be pierced to hold Sidney Weinberger personally liable for unpaid employee benefit contributions, and that the damages and interest awarded were proper.
• Robert R. Jones Assocs., Inc. v. Nino Homes
  858 F.2d 274· 6th Cir.· 1988-09-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that damages for copyright infringement of architectural plans can include losses from the infringer's subsequent use of the copied plans, but attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest are not recoverable if infringement began before registration.
• Rowe v. Maremont Corp.
  850 F.2d 1226· 7th Cir.· 1988-06-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that Maremont's misrepresentations and omissions regarding its intent to acquire Pemcor were material and that the Rowes reasonably relied on these statements, supporting a Rule 10b-5 claim.
• Munden v. Ultra-Alaska Assocs.
  849 F.2d 383· 9th Cir.· 1988-06-08 ·cited 12×
  A notice of appeal filed before the disposition of a timely Rule 59(e) motion is premature and has no effect, requiring a new notice of appeal after the motion's disposition.
• Caribank v. Frankel
  525 So. 2d 942· Fla. 4th DCA· 1988-05-11 ·cited 12×
  Caribank appealed a summary final judgment of foreclosure in which the trial court found that the Frankels' equitable lien, arising from their contract and deposit with Three "D" Development, was superior to Caribank's mortgage lien because Caribank had actual knowledge of the Fr
• The Travelers Ins. Co. v. Transp. Ins. Co.
  846 F.2d 1048· 7th Cir.· 1988-04-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that federal law, not state law, governs post-judgment interest in diversity cases, and that the district court erred by not conducting a more thorough inquiry into the parties' intentions regarding prejudgment interest and by curtailing discovery.
• Northrop Corp. v. Triad Int'l Mktg. S.A.
  842 F.2d 1154· 9th Cir.· 1988-03-29 ·cited 12×
  Postjudgment interest on an reinstated arbitration award should run from the date of the original district court order vacating the award, not from the date of the judgment on remand.
• LEA Exploration, Inc. v. Dep't OF Energy
  843 F.2d 510· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1988-02-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that oil extracted in a measurable amount, even if burned off, qualifies as 'produced' under DOE regulations, and that prejudgment interest must be awarded on restitution for overcharges.
• Dyser Plumbing Co. & Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Ross Plumbing & Heating, Inc.
  515 So. 2d 250· Fla. 2d DCA· 1987-09-04 ·cited 12×
  Dyser Plumbing, as a general contractor, subcontracted plumbing work to Ross Plumbing on a hospital addition project. When the project experienced significant delays, Dyser settled its delay damages claim with the owner for $175,000 without allocating funds to Ross, leading to th
• United States v. Randall & Blake
  817 F.2d 1188· 5th Cir.· 1987-05-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a Miller Act claim is timely if an intervention motion is filed within the limitations period, and that the amended complaint related back to the original filing. Prejudgment interest is permissible if contractually agreed, but a usury defense requires factual
• United States v. Seaboard Sur. Co. & the Home Ins. Co.
  817 F.2d 956· 2d Cir.· 1987-04-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction over the Miller Act surety bond claim, that the admission of evidence of the sureties' bad faith was erroneous but not prejudicial, and that the calculation of prejudgment interest was an abuse of discretion.
• Bituminous Constr., Inc. v. Rucker Enters., Inc.
  816 F.2d 965· 4th Cir.· 1987-04-21 ·cited 12×
  A defendant who presents evidence after their Rule 41(b) motion to dismiss is denied waives the right to appeal the denial, and the sufficiency of the evidence is reviewed based on the entire record.
• Rocky Mountain Helicopters, Inc. v. Bell Helicopters Textron
  805 F.2d 907· 10th Cir.· 1986-11-19 ·cited 12×
  A lienholder named in a breach of warranty endorsement is not automatically an "insured party" immune from subrogation claims under Texas law, especially when not listed as an insured, not paying premiums, and the policy's intent was not to cover the lienholder's negligence.
• Kroblin Refrigerated Xpress, Inc. v. Wernert J. Pitterich
  805 F.2d 96· 3d Cir.· 1986-11-06 ·cited 12×
  The Third Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings on the guarantee clause, frustration of purpose, specific performance, shareholder standing, and the law firm's fiduciary duty. However, it reversed the district court's determination that Pitterich's $100,000 claim under th
• McCRANN v. United States Lines, Inc.
  803 F.2d 771· 2d Cir.· 1986-10-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the prejudgment interest rate can exceed the discount rate, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in applying a 2% discount rate despite expert testimony suggesting a lower rate.
• Cantieri Navali Riuniti v. M/V Skyptron
  802 F.2d 160· 5th Cir.· 1986-10-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the preferred mortgage status was partially waived by its terms, and that the appellees' claims qualified as Article 2 liens under the Brussels Convention.
• In re Burlington Northern
  810 F.2d 601· 7th Cir.· 1986-10-02 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the denial of multipliers for exceptional success and risk, and the denial of interest from the decree date, but reversed the order to pay fees directly to individual attorneys and paralegals.
• Bowers v. The Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
  800 F.2d 474· 5th Cir.· 1986-09-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the jury's finding of no contributory negligence was supported by the evidence and that the jury instructions were proper, but that plaintiffs were entitled to prejudgment interest under recent Texas law.
• Ark. Rice Growers Coop. Ass'n v. Alchemy Indus., Inc.
  797 F.2d 565· 8th Cir.· 1986-07-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that Alchemy and Pitt, Inc. are liable for breach of contract due to faulty plant design, but the individual defendants are not subject to personal jurisdiction in Arkansas.
• Transorient Navigators Co., S.A. v. M/S Southwind
  788 F.2d 288· 5th Cir.· 1986-04-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to award the United States contribution against the SOUTHWIND in rem because the vessel was not arrested and the bond posted was a special bond. It also held that Transorient could recover full interest from the SOUTHWIND
• Playboy Enters., Inc. v. ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
  769 F.2d 425· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the exclusionary clause in the insurance policy was ambiguous and must be construed in favor of the insured, meaning the insurer breached its duty to defend. However, the court remanded the attorney's fees award for a clearer explanation from the district cour