Prejudgment Interest

2,312 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count

• ZIM Israel Navigation Co., Ltd. v. Special Carriers, Inc.
  800 F.2d 1392· 5th Cir.· 1986-09-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact did not preclude summary judgment for interest on a late settlement payment, and the district court did not err in applying state law for the interest rate.
• Clayton Brokerage Co. OF ST. Louis, Inc. v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n & Webster S. Sturcken
  794 F.2d 573· 11th Cir.· 1986-07-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the broker's misrepresentations about trading risks proximately caused the customer's losses, and the broker acted within the scope of employment, imputing liability to the firm. The court also upheld the award of prejudgment interest.
• Bubla v. Waverly Daniel Bradshaw, Sr.
  795 F.2d 349· 4th Cir.· 1986-07-08 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed admiralty jurisdiction and Hudgins Marine's negligence, reversed the finding of Bradshaw's negligence, and remanded for a more detailed damages calculation.
• Fid. & Deposit Co. OF Md. v. Reliance Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  795 F.2d 42· 7th Cir.· 1986-07-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the loss was covered by the bond and that prejudgment interest was properly awarded, affirming the district court's decision.
• Enfield's Miami Photo, Inc. v. Keyes Co.
  489 So. 2d 1203· Fla. 3d DCA· 1986-06-10 ·cited 4×
• EOI Elecs., Inc. v. Xebec
  785 F.2d 391· 2d Cir.· 1986-03-06 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the judgment in part, vacated the award of collection expenses to EOI, and remanded for a new trial on that issue, modifying the pre-judgment interest calculation.
• Allen v. Safeco Ins. Co. OF Am.
  782 F.2d 1517· 11th Cir.· 1986-02-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury's finding of no arson was supported by sufficient evidence, and that the use of a learned treatise was permissible. However, it vacated awards for prejudgment interest and loss of use due to non-compliance with policy terms and incorrect calculation.
• Seal Offshore, Inc. v. Am. Standard, Inc.
  777 F.2d 1042· 5th Cir.· 1985-12-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court's apportionment of fault was not clearly erroneous, and that Wabco, as a joint tortfeasor who paid the judgment, is entitled to contribution from Houghton for prejudgment interest and costs. However, the judgment was technically flawed in aw
• Newman v. Grand Trunk W. R.R. Co.
  781 F.2d 55· 6th Cir.· 1985-11-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that prejudgment interest is not available in FELA personal injury cases, and the denial of certain costs was not an abuse of discretion.
• Wilsmann v. Upjohn Co. & Upjohn Health Care Servs., Inc.
  775 F.2d 713· 6th Cir.· 1985-10-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim of promissory fraud in connection with the sale of his stock was cognizable under federal securities laws, but reversed the jury verdict due to insufficient evidence and conflicting testimony.
• Whittington v. NEW Jersey Zinc Co.
  775 F.2d 698· 6th Cir.· 1985-10-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury instructions regarding employment status and the right to control were adequate, and that a hearing is required to determine prejudgment interest.
• Gary Braswell & Assocs., Inc. v. Piedmont Indus., Inc.
  773 F.2d 987· 8th Cir.· 1985-09-25 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the trial court's judgment regarding breach of contract and conversion, but remanded for determination of prejudgment interest.
• Blevins v. United States
  769 F.2d 175· 4th Cir.· 1985-07-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Public Vessels Act and Suits in Admiralty Act govern the rate of postjudgment interest for claims against the United States, not the general rate set by 28 U.S.C. § 1961, and that disfigurement damages were properly included in the pain and suffering award
• Rocky Mountain Mach. Co. v. First Nat'l Bank OF Trinidad
  767 F.2d 722· 10th Cir.· 1985-07-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Bank breached its contract by failing to disburse coal proceeds as agreed and that prejudgment interest should have been awarded.
• Underwriters AT LaCONCORDE v. Airtech Servs., Inc.
  468 So. 2d 386· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-04-23 ·cited 4×
  An insurer (Underwriters) sued an aircraft maintenance company (Airtech) for negligence in a subrogation action. The jury found Airtech 100% negligent and awarded damages, but the trial court initially granted then rescinded prejudgment interest. The Third District affirmed, hold
• E. Coast Tender Serv., Inc. v. Robert T. Winzinger, Inc.
  759 F.2d 280· 3d Cir.· 1985-04-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that wreck removal costs are not covered under the P&I policy when the legal compulsion to remove arises too long after the policy's expiration, even if the initial loss occurred during the policy term.
• Farmers Exp. Co. v. United States & Interstate Commerce Comm'n
  758 F.2d 733· D.C. Cir.· 1985-04-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the ICC's tie vote on reopening the demurrage refund decision was not a final action and thus not appealable, and affirmed the ICC's denial of reopening the interest rate calculation decision.
• Christmann & Welborn v. Dep't OF Energy
  773 F.2d 317· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1985-03-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the government is not estopped from enforcing pricing regulations based on unauthorized oral advice from an official, and that the unit operator is liable for the full amount of overcharges.
• Cedar Point Apts., Ltd. v. Cedar Point Inv. Corp.
  756 F.2d 629· 8th Cir.· 1985-03-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the "interest-rate differential" was improperly included in the damage calculation for breach of contract, as it either duplicated other damages or represented costs not actually incurred by the buyers. The court also affirmed the denial of punitive damages an
• China Union Lines v. Am. Marine Underwriters, Inc.
  755 F.2d 26· 2d Cir.· 1985-02-07 ·cited 4×
  Insurers are liable under marine insurance contracts for the loss of a ship, and pre-judgment interest is generally permissible in admiralty cases.
• The McCARTY Corp. v. Pullman-Kellogg
  751 F.2d 750· 5th Cir.· 1985-01-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a contract can be annulled due to error in the principal cause, even in a unit price contract, if the error was induced by the other party's misrepresentations and the party reasonably relied on those representations.
• Crabtree v. Baptist Hosp. OF Gadsden, Inc.
  749 F.2d 1501· 11th Cir.· 1985-01-08 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the district court's liability determination but reversed and remanded for recalculation of damages, including prejudgment interest and executive retirement benefits, and to base the backpay award on the higher salary found to comply with the Equal Pay Act.
• Crown Zellerbach Corp. v. Ingram Indus., Inc.
  745 F.2d 995· 5th Cir.· 1984-11-09 ·cited 4×
• Contractor Util. Sales Co., Inc. v. Certain-Teed Corp.
  748 F.2d 1151· 7th Cir.· 1984-11-09 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in evidentiary rulings and that punitive damages and pre-judgment interest were properly awarded or denied under Pennsylvania law.
• Thompson-Hayward Chem. Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co.
  745 F.2d 27· Fed. Cir.· 1984-10-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a prior decision invalidating the patent due to fraud on the PTO overrides procedural rules and prior judgments, requiring dismissal of the infringement claim.
• Getty OIL Co. v. Dep't OF Energy
  749 F.2d 734· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1984-09-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the two contracts between Getty and Sohio constituted a single integrated agreement, and Getty violated DOE's producer price regulations by charging more than the lawful ceiling price for domestic crude oil when the value of the foreign oil received was consid
• Arceneaux v. Merrill Lynch
  595 F. Supp. 171· M.D. Fla.· 1984-08-20 ·cited 4×
  The court denied defendants' motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, new trial, or remittitur, granted plaintiffs' motion for prejudgment interest, and awarded attorneys' fees under the Florida Securities Act.
• Noble v. Corporacion Insular de Seguros
  738 F.2d 51· 1st Cir.· 1984-07-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff should receive the full value of the boat ($130,000) less the amount received from its sale ($55,000), plus repair costs ($23,900), and that prejudgment interest should be awarded due to the insurer's obstinacy.
• Irving Pulp & Paper v. Dunbar Transfer & Storage Co., Inc.
  732 F.2d 511· 6th Cir.· 1984-04-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the defendant is equitably estopped from asserting the contractual limitations period due to misleading conduct, and that the defendant's negligence in storing the goods warrants liability for all damages, including market price fluctuations and storage costs
• Shepherd OIL v. Atl. Richfield Co.
  734 F.2d 23· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1984-04-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that ARCO's exclusion of imported crude oil received in exchange for domestic oil, imported crude oil delivered directly to a refiner-buyer, and offshore stored crude oil from its Buy/Sell Price Rule calculations was proper.
• Black Gold Coal Corp. v. Shawville Coal Co.
  730 F.2d 941· 3d Cir.· 1984-04-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that prejudgment interest cannot be awarded if the contract does not contain a fixed standard for calculating damages, and the party seeking interest fails to prove such a standard.
• Deal v. A.P. Bell Fish Co. & Beverly J. Estes
  728 F.2d 717· 5th Cir.· 1984-03-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the prior decision did not resolve issues of cause and contributory negligence, and the jury should have been allowed to consider damages for pain and suffering.
• Adams v. Lindblad Travel, Inc.
  730 F.2d 89· 2d Cir.· 1984-03-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court erred in calculating contract damages by including fixed costs and that the plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest. The court affirmed the dismissal of quantum meruit and agency claims.
• Schumann v. Levi
  728 F.2d 1141· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the magistrate properly awarded the contract price for goods identified to the contract under the UCC, but erred in calculating prejudgment and postjudgment interest.
• F & H Inv. Co., Inc. v. Sackman-Gilliland Corp.
  728 F.2d 1050· 8th Cir.· 1984-02-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury's award of damages was inconsistent with its findings and instructions, requiring a new trial on the fraudulent misrepresentation claim.
• Friends FOR ALL Child., Inc. v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp.
  725 F.2d 1392· D.C. Cir.· 1984-01-13 ·cited 4×
  Guardians ad litem can be awarded fees regardless of the litigation's outcome, as they are court officers tasked with protecting minors.
• Tosco Corp. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  723 F.2d 1242· 6th Cir.· 1983-12-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the bank was bound by the actions of its agent who issued the letter of credit under the doctrine of apparent authority, and that the draft presented did not fail to comply strictly with the letter of credit's terms. However, the court modified the judgment to
• Alpha Elec. Supply, Inc. v. G.E. LEE Enters., Inc.
  441 So. 2d 698· Fla. 2d DCA· 1983-11-30 ·cited 4×
  Alpha Electric Supply sued G.E. Lee Enterprises and its stockholder guarantors for open-account indebtedness. The trial court granted defendants' motion for new trial based on an alleged inconsistency in the jury's special verdict, and denied prejudgment interest and costs on the
• Saturn Mfg., Inc. v. Williams Patent Crusher & Pulverizer Co. & Robert M. Williams
  713 F.2d 1347· 8th Cir.· 1983-07-27 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the patent validity and infringement findings but reversed and remanded on the issues of increased damages and prejudgment interest.
• R.C. McENTIRE & Co. v. E. Foods, Inc.
  702 F.2d 471· 4th Cir.· 1983-03-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in submitting the de facto merger theory to the jury, nor in its award of damages or prejudgment interest, as the defendant had sufficient notice and the evidence supported the verdict.
• C. E. Sawyer's Indus. Sheet Metal Fabricators, Inc. v. Cent. Rigging & Contracting Corp.
  653 F.2d 956· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court's findings were not clearly erroneous and that the award of prejudgment interest was proper under Alabama law.
• United States v. The Hannan Co. & Hannan S. Constr., Inc.
  639 F.2d 284· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the 25% limitation under 26 U.S.C. § 3505(b) applies to the total liability, including prejudgment interest.
• Hubler Rentals, Inc. v. Roadway Express, Inc.
  637 F.2d 257· 4th Cir.· 1981-01-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Hubler's material breach of its maintenance covenant barred its recovery for Roadway's improper contract termination, and Roadway's contract-based counterclaim for overcharges was also barred by its own prior material breach.
• Neb. Pub. Power Dist. v. Borg-Warner Corp.
  621 F.2d 282· 8th Cir.· 1980-05-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the exclusion of evidence was not prejudicial error and that the trial court did not misapply Nebraska law in denying prejudgment interest on unliquidated claims.
• Ford Motor Co. v. Auto Supply Co., Inc.
  615 F.2d 757· 8th Cir.· 1980-01-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that prejudgment interest should commence from the date of the last item in the account, not six months after the termination of the sales agreement, and affirmed the trial court's judgment on other grounds.
• Young v. Ethyl Corp.
  581 F.2d 715· 8th Cir.· 1978-08-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court applied an improper measure of damages by awarding a share of end-product profits rather than the in-place or royalty value of the brine taken.
• BOH Bros. Constr. Co., Inc. v. M/V Tag-Along
  569 F.2d 217· 5th Cir.· 1978-02-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court's damage award was insufficiently detailed for review and remanded for supplemental findings.
• Rositer v. BOB Toomey Truck Leasing, Inc.
  567 F.2d 938· 10th Cir.· 1977-12-16 ·cited 4×
• Riske v. Truck Ins. Exch.
  541 F.2d 768· 8th Cir.· 1976-09-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the insurer's arguments regarding damages, the admissibility of the settlement agreement, jury instructions, and pre-judgment interest were unavailing, affirming the trial court's judgment.
• Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Tex. E. Transmission Corp.
  533 F.2d 272· 5th Cir.· 1976-06-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that demurrage charges are governed by the rate in effect when the cars are detained for storage, not when the goods were shipped, and affirmed the denial of prejudgment interest.