Prejudgment Interest

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

• Bruegger v. Nat'l OLD Line Ins. Co.
  529 F.2d 869· 10th Cir.· 1976-02-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the life insurance policy was in effect and imposed liability on the defendant insurer, but that prejudgment interest should have been awarded.
• Lytle v. Freedom Int'l Carrier
  519 F.2d 129· 6th Cir.· 1975-06-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a fourth-party complaint filed after judgment satisfaction can be sustained by independent diversity jurisdiction, and that the insurer failed to meet its burden to specifically exclude Ryan doctrine liability from coverage.
• Martinez v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique
  517 F.2d 371· 1st Cir.· 1975-05-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the indemnity action between the shipowner and stevedore must be retried due to an erroneous jury instruction regarding the imputation of the longshoreman's negligence to the stevedore. Other appeals were rejected.
• Iberian Tankers Co. v. Gates Constr. Corp.
  504 F.2d 747· 2d Cir.· 1974-10-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court construed its discretion too narrowly in awarding prejudgment interest.
• Koch Indus., Inc. v. Irwin Lyon Vosko
  494 F.2d 713· 10th Cir.· 1974-04-08 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Koch Industries committed fraud and breached the contract, while Vosko did not. The court also upheld the trial court's valuation of damages and rejection of setoffs.
• Wyatt Indus., Inc. v. Publicker Indus., Inc.
  420 F.2d 454· 5th Cir.· 1969-12-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that contractual limitations on liability and remedies are enforceable, even for implied warranties, but that a subsequent telex agreement superseded an earlier one, increasing the maximum liability cap.
• Cap. Ins. & Sur. Co., Inc. v. Globe Indem. Co.
  382 F.2d 623· 9th Cir.· 1967-09-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding Carolan was not covered by the Globe policy and that Capital's policy limits were not restricted, thus affirming the judgment for Globe on equitable subrogation.
• Simpson Timber Co. v. Palmberg Constr. Co.
  377 F.2d 380· 9th Cir.· 1967-04-05 ·cited 4×
  A contract diagram, even if not expressly incorporated, can be considered parol evidence to clarify ambiguity in the contract, and a contractor is not entitled to additional compensation for work contemplated by the contract, even if unforeseen difficulties arise.
• United States v. P & D Coal Mining Co., Inc.
  358 F.2d 619· 6th Cir.· 1966-03-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the P&D Coal Mining Company had the right to terminate the contract and that the Government, as an assignee, was not immune from liability for interest on a counterclaim.
• Flota Mercante Grancolombiana, S.A. v. Fed. Mar. Comm'n & United States
  342 F.2d 924· D.C. Cir.· 1964-12-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Federal Maritime Commission abused its discretion by imposing reparations on Flota, as it would be inequitable given the unsettled law, Flota's good faith doubts, and the Commission's own significant delays.
• Monsanto Chem. Co. v. NO. 3 Bull Towing Co.
  326 F.2d 18· 6th Cir.· 1963-12-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the barge's unseaworthiness and the calculation of damages were supported by substantial evidence and were not clearly erroneous.
• Anderson-Prichard OIL Corp. v. Parker
  245 F.2d 831· 10th Cir.· 1957-05-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury's finding that the blowout was not caused by the plaintiff's actions or assumed risks was supported by substantial evidence, but that interest should have been awarded from the date payment was due under the contract.
• First Equitable Realty III, Ltd. v. Grandview Palace Condo Assoc., Inc.
  246 So. 3d 445· Fla. 3d DCA· 2018-04-11 ·cited 3×
  First Equitable Realty III, Ltd. appeals an Amended Final Judgment awarding Grandview Palace Condominium Association unpaid condominium assessments and attorney's fees. The Association cross-appeals the trial court's reduction of interest on those assessments. The court affirms t
• DON Facciobene, Inc. v. Hough Roofing, Inc.
  225 So. 3d 323· Fla. 5th DCA· 2017-07-21 ·cited 3×
  Don Facciobene, Inc. (DFI), a general contractor, and Hough Roofing, Inc. (HRI), a roofing subcontractor, disputed payment for roofing work on a historic property. The trial court awarded HRI only partial payment based on a finding that the subcontract did not apply retroactively
• Wells v. Halmac Dev., Inc.
  184 So. 3d 620· Fla. 3d DCA· 2016-02-03 ·cited 3×
  The Florida Third District Court of Appeal reviewed a trial court's award of appellate attorneys' fees to determine whether prejudgment interest should have been included. The court held that section 57.106(1) requires prejudgment interest to be awarded as part of attorneys' fees
• Wright v. GUY Yudin & Foster, LLP
  176 So. 3d 368· Fla. 4th DCA· 2015-10-07 ·cited 3×
  Richard Wright appeals a judgment awarding his former law firm, Guy Yudin & Foster, LLP, $109,960.76 in unpaid attorneys' fees plus prejudgment interest. The court upheld the award, finding that a March 2007 letter agreement was not a contingency fee arrangement but rather an ack
• Nalasco v. Buckman
  171 So. 3d 759· Fla. 4th DCA· 2015-07-15 ·cited 3×
  The appellate court reversed an attorney's fee judgment, finding the trial court's findings inadequate and that the fee award should have been based on the greater of the contingency fee agreement or the lodestar calculation, not solely on the contingency agreement.
• Briarwood Cap. v. Lennar Corp.
  125 So. 3d 291· Fla. 3d DCA· 2013-09-11 ·cited 3×
  The Florida Third District Court of Appeal sanctioned Briarwood Capital and its counsel for filing a frivolous petition for writ of prohibition challenging the trial court's jurisdiction to proceed against them in a fraud action after a separate final judgment was entered against
• Green v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp.
  59 So. 3d 1227· Fla. 4th DCA· 2011-05-11 ·cited 3×
  Eugene Green appealed a trial court's denial of his motion for prejudgment interest on an insurance claim. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that prejudgment interest is allowed only from the date the debt is due under the contract terms, and because Citizens
• 3V Cap. Master Fund Ltd. v. Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Tousa
  444 B.R. 613· S.D. Fla.· 2011-02-11 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court correctly determined that the Transeastern Lenders received fraudulent transfers under Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code.
• Kolter Signature Homes, Inc. v. Shenton
  46 So. 3d 1211· Fla. 4th DCA· 2010-11-10 ·cited 3×
  Home builders sought ILSA exemption for real estate contracts claiming they obligated construction within two years. The court held the contracts did not qualify for exemption because paragraph 15 limited purchasers' remedy of specific performance by requiring conditions preceden
• McLAUGHLIN, Inc. v. Ric-Man Int'l, Inc.
  31 So. 3d 308· Fla. 4th DCA· 2010-04-07 ·cited 3×
  Prejudgment interest is proper for a quantum meruit recovery, and the trial court should have awarded it from the date each invoice was due.
• Gencor Indus., Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.
  988 So. 2d 1206· Fla. 5th DCA· 2008-08-15 ·cited 3×
  GenCor Industries appealed from a judgment awarding Fireman's Fund Insurance Company over $1.7 million in breach of contract damages arising from a negligent calibration error that caused an explosion at an asphalt plant. GenCor's defense that contractual risk-of-loss provisions
• BSP/Port Orange, LLC. v. Water Mill Props., Inc.
  969 So. 2d 1077· Fla. 5th DCA· 2007-10-19 ·cited 3×
  The court held that failure to plead an affirmative defense, such as modification, prevents its consideration at summary judgment, but reversed the judgment against one appellant and corrected prejudgment interest.
• Gen. Motors Corp. v. Phat Cat Carts, Inc.
  504 F. Supp. 2d 1278· M.D. Fla.· 2007-08-10 ·cited 3×
  The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to grant a preliminary injunction, finding a substantial likelihood of success on the merits for trademark and trade dress infringement and dilution claims.
• Buchman v. Canard
  863 So. 2d 487· Fla. 3d DCA· 2004-01-21 ·cited 3×
• Am. Reliance Ins. Co. v. Devecht
  820 So. 2d 378· Fla. 3d DCA· 2002-05-22 ·cited 3×
  The court held that an arbitration award must be confirmed absent statutory grounds for vacating or modifying it, but prejudgment interest may be awarded from the date of an appraisal award.
• Allapattah Servs., Inc. v. Exxon Corp.
  157 F. Supp. 2d 1291· S.D. Fla.· 2001-08-07 ·cited 3×
  The court held that it cannot ministerially enter an aggregate final judgment for compensatory damages and prejudgment interest based on the jury's special verdict, as the verdict did not award such an aggregate amount and the required calculations go beyond simple ministerial ta
• Sw. Fla. Aviation, Inc. v. NEW River Inv. Advisors, Inc.
  774 So. 2d 779· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-12-13 ·cited 3×
  The court affirmed the trial court's enforcement of the settlement agreement but reversed the prejudgment interest calculation.
• Atl. Sec. Bank v. Adiler S.A.
  760 So. 2d 258· Fla. 3d DCA· 2000-06-07 ·cited 3×
  Atlantic Security Bank appeals a jury verdict finding it liable for fraud and negligent misrepresentation committed by its client Carlos Armele, who defrauded Jorge Carbon in a scheme involving the purported acquisition of a Uruguayan bank. The court affirms the judgment and dama
• Gallo v. Dep't OF Banking & Fin.
  749 So. 2d 582· Fla. 5th DCA· 2000-01-28 ·cited 3×
  The Department's decision to exclude prejudgment interest from 'actual or compensatory damages' under section 517.141 was clearly erroneous because Florida common law includes prejudgment interest as an element of compensatory damages.
• GEM Broad., Inc. v. Minker
  763 So. 2d 1149· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-01-19 ·cited 3×
  The court held that competent, substantial evidence supported the damage award for consulting services under a contract implied in fact, and a benefit to the defendant was not a necessary element for recovery on such a contract.
• Terence M. Brown v. Anne T. Brown
  732 So. 2d 1169· Fla. 1st DCA· 1999-04-20 ·cited 3×
  The court held that prejudgment interest was improperly calculated and a notice of lis pendens should have been discharged, and that the trial court erred by not considering all of the appellant's counterclaims.
• Gus Boulis v. Dep't OF Transp.
  709 So. 2d 206· Fla. 5th DCA· 1998-05-15 ·cited 3×
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. for First Am. Bank & Tr. v. Levine
  680 So. 2d 536· Fla. 4th DCA· 1996-06-26 ·cited 3×
  The FDIC, as receiver for a failed bank, appealed a trial court order awarding debtors pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on a $300,000 unsecured claim. The court affirmed the award of pre-insolvency interest but reversed the award of post-insolvency interest, holding that p
• Oakland E. Manors Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. LA Roza
  669 So. 2d 1138· Fla. 4th DCA· 1996-03-20 ·cited 3×
  A condominium association appealed a trial court judgment denying foreclosure on a unit owner's property and refusing to award prejudgment interest and attorney's fees for collecting unpaid assessments. The appellate court affirmed the denial of foreclosure but reversed and reman
• Christenson & Assocs. v. Palumbo-Tucker
  656 So. 2d 266· Fla. 4th DCA· 1995-06-21 ·cited 3×
  In affirming a judgment for punitive damages, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal addresses whether prejudgment interest should be included in calculating the presumptive cap on punitive damages under Florida Statute § 768.73(1)(a). The court holds that prejudgment intere
• Miner v. City OF Glens Falls
  999 F.2d 655· 2d Cir.· 1993-07-26 ·cited 3×
  The court held that while the district court improperly shifted the burden of proving causation, the plaintiff was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law on causation because he presented sufficient evidence at the summary judgment stage, and thus the damages award is affirmed
• Cantrell v. GAF Corp.
  999 F.2d 1007· 6th Cir.· 1993-07-26 ·cited 3×
  The court affirmed the judgment, despite reservations about prejudicial factors, due to defendant's failure to object.
• CIGNA Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Ruden
  621 So. 2d 714· Fla. 3d DCA· 1993-05-18 ·cited 3×
  CIGNA Property & Casualty Co. appealed a judgment requiring it to pay marine insurance coverage under a "sue and labor" clause, including vessel foreclosure damages and prejudgment interest. The court affirmed coverage liability but reversed the award for vessel value and prejudg
• Donahey v. Bogle
  987 F.2d 1250· 6th Cir.· 1993-03-09 ·cited 3×
  The court held that Seabourne Livingstone was a responsible party under CERCLA, that Donaheys' cleanup costs were not recoverable due to non-compliance with regulations, but remanded for determination of investigative costs and attorneys fees.
• Lemelson v. Gen. Mills, Inc.
  968 F.2d 1202· Fed. Cir.· 1992-06-30 ·cited 3×
  The court held that no reasonable jury could find the patent claim valid and infringed by the accused product, given the prosecution history and prior art.
• Ticor Title Ins. v. Univ. Creek, Inc.
  767 F. Supp. 1127· M.D. Fla.· 1991-06-19 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the Shubows' affidavit and lis pendens constituted an encumbrance covered by the title policy, and that University Creek's settlement was a covered loss due to Ticor's unreasonable delay and refusal to act.
• United States Naval Inst. v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc.
  936 F.2d 692· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-18 ·cited 3×
  An exclusive licensee cannot be held liable for copyright infringement of the rights granted by the license; liability for early publication rests on breach of contract. Damages for breach of contract are measured by the plaintiff's actual loss, not the defendant's profits, unles
• Napp v. Carman
  576 So. 2d 361· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-03-06 ·cited 3×
• Kaufman Co., Inc. v. Lantech, Inc.
  926 F.2d 1136· Fed. Cir.· 1991-02-21 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying lost profits for 36 infringing sales by applying an incorrect legal standard regarding acceptable non-infringing substitutes, and affirmed the prejudgment interest rate.
• Powerhouse, Inc. v. Walton
  557 So. 2d 186· Fla. 1st DCA· 1990-02-20 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a trial court's application of an incorrect standard of proof for fraud can be reversible error, even if the evidence might otherwise support the finding. It also affirmed the award of damages for breach of contract against the corporation.
• Riera v. Finlay Med. Ctrs. Hmo Corp.
  543 So. 2d 372· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-05-16 ·cited 3×
  Dolores Riera, an HMO member, appeals a declaratory decree in a dispute with her health insurance provider Finlay Medical Centers over payment of medical bills from an automobile accident and reimbursement rights from her tort settlement. The appellate court affirms the trial cou
• Ins. Co. OF N. Am., Inc. v. U.S. Gypsum Co., Inc.
  870 F.2d 148· 4th Cir.· 1989-03-13 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the catastrophic subsidence event was fortuitous and covered under the all-risk policy, and that the insured had no affirmative duty to disclose potential subsidence risks absent specific inquiry or policy provisions.
• Crockett v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
  849 F.2d 1369· 11th Cir.· 1988-07-20 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the insurer was not entitled to a setoff for amounts beyond the policy limit or for expenses incurred in purchasing the mortgage, and that prejudgment interest was properly awarded on the full claim amount.