SANTA ROSA GOLF ASSOCIATES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM M. HARAWAY, III, AND DANA HARAWAY, HUSBAND AND WIFE, APPELLEES; CORNERSTONE DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC., APPELLANT, V. WILLIAM M. HARAWAY, III, AND DANA HARAWAY, HUSBAND AND WIFE, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Santa Rosa Golf Associates and Cornerstone Development Group appealed a negligence judgment in favor of the Haraways for property damage. The court reversed the trial court's erroneous application of both the cost of repairs and diminution in value as damages measures, holding that only the cost of repairs should apply when repair costs do not exceed the diminution in value.
The trial court erred in adopting both measures of damages. When the cost of repairs does not exceed the diminution in value and repair is practicable, damages must be measured solely by the cost of repairs, not by both measures, to prevent overcompensation and overlapping recovery.
[1] Damages for wrongful injury to property are generally measured by either the diminution in value or the cost of repair, but not both.
[2] When the cost of repairs is less than the diminution in value, damages are measured by the cost of repairs.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Generally, damages for the wrongful injury of property are measured either by the diminution in the value of the property, referred to as the diminution in value rule, or by the costs of repairing or restoring the property to its condition prior to the injury, referred to as the restoration rule.”
Establishes the two recognized legal measures for property damage in Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court entered judgment in favor of William and Dana Haraway against Santa Rosa Golf Associates, Inc., and Cornerstone Development Group, Inc…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM.
As these two cases originated from one trial and as the appellants raise the same arguments in both cases, we consolidate the two cases for the purposes of this opinion. In this negligence action, the trial court entered final judgment in favor of the appellees, William and Dana Haraway, and against the appellants, Santa Rosa Golf Associates, Inc., and Cornerstone Development Group, Inc., jointly and severally, in the amount of $135,000. With respect to the appellants’ argument that the trial court erred in adopting both the cost of repairs and the diminution in value as the measure of damages, we agree and reverse and remand. With respect to the appellants’ other arguments, we affirm without discussion.
Generally, damages for the wrongful injury of property are measured either by the diminution in the value of the property, referred to as the diminution in value rule, or by the costs of repairing or restoring the property to its condition pri-or to the injury, referred to as the restoration rule. See Davey Compressor Co. v. City of Delray Beach, 639 So. 2d 595, 596 (Fla.1994). If the cost of repairs or restoration is less than the diminution in value, then the law requires that damages be measured by the costs of repairs or restoration. If the cost of repairs or restoration exceeds the diminution in value or if repairing or restoring the property is impracticable, then the law requires that damages be measured by the diminution in value. Restricting the costs of repairs or restoration to the diminution in value is a means to prevent plaintiffs from being overcompensated or from receiving overlapping recovery. Id.
In the instant case, the trial court erroneously adopted both the cost of repairs and the diminution in value as the measure of damages. Instead, the trial court should have adopted only the cost of repair’s as the measure of damages. The cost of repairs did not exceed the diminution in value and there was no evidence that repairing the appellees’ property was impracticable.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED to the trial court with directions to enter an amended final judgment consistent with this opinion.
ALLEN, PADOVANO, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.