Prejudgment Interest

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

• Builders Equity Corp. v. Hurwitz
  530 F.2d 1072· D.C. Cir.· 1976-02-17
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying prejudgment interest on unliquidated tort damages, as Virginia law permits such interest and the damages were ascertainable by computation.
• Condor Corp. v. Arlen Realty & Dev. Corp.
  529 F.2d 87· 8th Cir.· 1976-02-10
  The court held that a landlord's duty to mitigate damages is satisfied by using reasonable efforts, and prejudgment interest is allowable on a contract claim even with an unliquidated setoff.
• Am. Elec. Power Serv. Corp. v. Beshear
  529 F.2d 1113· 6th Cir.· 1976-01-20
  The court held that Beshear was not acting as a real estate broker and was therefore not precluded from recovery under the agreement, and that AEP's fraud claim was unsupported by evidence.
• Hawkeye Chem. Co. v. ST. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
  510 F.2d 322· 7th Cir.· 1975-01-20
  A fire insurance policy condition excluding coverage for increased hazard is inoperative if the increase in hazard did not contribute to the loss, as dictated by Iowa statute, even if the insured had knowledge and control over the increased hazard.
• Frontier Airlines, Inc. v. SKY Chefs, Inc.
  447 F.2d 1351· 5th Cir.· 1971-09-02
  The court held that the jury's findings of negligence were supported by evidence and that Frontier was entitled to pre-judgment interest from the date of the collision.
• Piaggio & C. v. Cushman Motor Works, Inc.
  416 F.2d 683· 7th Cir.· 1969-10-06
  The court held that a purchase is counted against a quota based on the date of shipment, not the order date, and that Cushman breached the contract by failing to meet its quota. The court also found that Cushman had no contractual right to receive 1963 models and that its antitru
• Reliance Ins. Co. v. Pyrofax GAS Corp. & Jerry Ritter Appliances, Inc.
  389 F.2d 602· 6th Cir.· 1968-01-26
  The court considered a petition for apportionment of mineral rights and addressed objections to expert testimony and motions for directed verdict, ultimately finding it unnecessary to rule on the expert's qualifications.
• HAP Corp. v. Heyman Mfg. Co.
  361 F.2d 329· 1st Cir.· 1966-05-12
  The court affirmed the confirmation of the master's report regarding patent infringement damages, denying both parties' appeals.
• R. Arthur Ludwig in Bankr. of Wis. Screw Co. v. Detroit Fire & Marine Ins. Co. of Detroit
  342 F.2d 608· 7th Cir.· 1965-02-24
  The court held that the Wisconsin valued policy statute did not apply, and recovery was limited to the actual loss prorated among insurers, with no entitlement to pre-judgment interest on unliquidated damages.
• Johnson v. Allstate Ins. Co.
  333 F.2d 698· 4th Cir.· 1964-06-15
  The court held that the insurer seeking to shift liability failed to establish grounds for waiver or estoppel, and prejudgment interest was appropriate.
• F. S. Bowen Elec. Co., Inc. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co.
  256 F.2d 46· 4th Cir.· 1958-06-02
  The court held that the "Reserve for Unearned Profit on Work in Progress" is a liability, not net worth, and that book values of assets do not equate to salable value for determining insolvency under the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act.
• Carlstrom v. Agric. INS. Co.
  180 F.2d 286· 9th Cir.· 1950-01-30
  The court held that the insured was entitled to pre-judgment interest on the fire insurance award because the loss was capable of being made certain by calculation.