S. KORNREICH & SONS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
TITAN AGENCIES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
Kornreich, a New York-based insurance agency, contracted with Titan, a Florida insurance agency, to service Kornreich's relocated clients. Titan sued for reimbursement of premium costs it advanced on behalf of Kornreich's clients, and the trial court found Kornreich liable for $116,325.33 in damages. The appellate court affirmed, rejecting Kornreich's challenges to liability, damages assessment, and evidentiary rulings.
Kornreich is liable for the premium costs advanced by Titan. The trial court's liability findings did not limit the evidence admissible on damages; the court could consider evidence beyond the broker statement and the $30,000 figure reflected thereon. The admission of the financial summary without formal prior notice was harmless error because Kornreich received a copy weeks before trial and deposed the preparer thirteen hours before trial.
[1] A trial court's finding of damages supported by substantial evidence will be affirmed on appeal, even if the evidence is conflicting.
[2] The credibility of witnesses is a matter uniquely within the province of the factfinder.
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“Although the evidence as to damages is conflicting, there is substantial evidence which supports the damages as determined by the court, thus, this finding must be affirmed.”
Establishes the substantial evidence standard of review and the court's refusal to disturb the damages award despite conflicting evidence presented by Kornreich.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKornreich and Titan entered into a fee-splitting arrangement where Titan would service Kornreich's clients who had moved to Florida. Titan advanced pr…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Credibility Of Witnesses cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellee-Titan, a Florida licensed insurance agency, and appellant-Kornreich, a Florida nonresident insurance agency which maintains its offices in New York City, entered into a fee-splitting arrangement whereby Titan would act as Kornreich’s agent to service Kornreich’s clients who had moved to Florida. The main issue in the case was whether Titan was to look solely to Kornreich for payment of premium costs advanced by Titan on behalf of Kornreich’s clients.
At the first hearing of a trial — bifurcated on appellant’s motion — the court determined that Kornreich was liable to Titan for premium costs which Titan advanced to the insurers on behalf of Kornreich’s clients. At the second hearing the court considered extensive evidence produced by Titan in arriving at the amount of damages.
Kornreich contends here that (1) the court erred in finding it liable and assessing damages at $116,325.33, (2) the findings made by the court at the trial on liability fixed or limited the evidence which the court could consider on the issue of damages, (3) the trial court erred in admitting into evidence without prior notice, a financial summary prepared by Titan.
The first issue challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the credibility of Titan’s witness. Kornreich put on evidence to dispute the testimony of Titan’s comptroller as to the correctness of the accounting method used in arriving at the figure of $116,323.33 in damages. Although the evidence as to damages is conflicting, there is substantial evidence which supports the damages as determined by the court, thus, this finding must be affirmed. Trobaugh v. Trobaugh, 81 So. 2d 629 (Fla.1955); City of Miami Beach v. Fein, 263 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Cone v. Cone, 114 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959). Kornreich argues further that it had sufficiently discredited the comptroller’s competency to the extent that the court should have discounted the testimony. We disagree. There is competent and substantial evidence to support the trial judge’s conclusions as to that issue, which conclusions would not be disturbed on appeal, Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976); Atkins v. Keller, 400 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Massachusetts Casualty Insurance Co. v. Johansen, 270 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), even if we were to disagree. Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So. 2d 56 (Fla.1977); Singer Housing Company v. Wren, 390 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Credibility of witnesses is peculiarly within the province of the factfinder. Povia v. Melvin, 66 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1953); Hunt v. Palm Springs General Hospital, 352 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Sweeney v. Wiggins, 350 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
The consideration of a “Broker Statement”, at the first hearing, for the purpose of determining the relationship between the parties went solely to the issue of liability, and for the purpose of the subsequent hearing to determine damages, the court was not limited to that statement and a figure of $30,000 reflected thereon as a balance owed Titan by Kornreich.
Appellants received a copy of the disputed summary several weeks before the trial on damages; twelve days before trial they took a thirteen-hour deposition of the employee who had prepared the summary. On these facts we cannot agree that the technical violation of § 90.956,1 Florida Statutes (1977) was harmful. Bernstein v. Common Markets, Inc., 183 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Victor Hotel Owners, Inc. v. Sperling, 104 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958).
Affirmed.
. § 90.956, Fla.Stat. (1977) provides:
When it is not convenient to examine in court the contents of voluminous writings, recordings, or photographs, a party may present them in the form of a chart, summary, or calculation by calling a qualified witness. The party intending to use such a summary must give timely written notice of his intention to use the summary, proof of which shall be filed with the court, and shall make the summary and the originals or duplicates of the data from which the summary is compiled available for examination or copying, or both, by other parties at a reasonable time and place. A judge may order that they be produced in court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Elliott Ross v. Bandi, 566 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…ng the circumstances surrounding the settlement agreement and found that he misled the court on several occasions. Credibility of witnesses is particularly within the province of the fact-finder. S. Kornreich and Sons, Inc. v. Titan Agencies, Inc., 423 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). No citation is needed for the time honored legal principle that the trier of fact is in the best position to weigh the evidence and determine the credibility of the witnesses. Although the evidence was conflicting, the trial cour…
-
F.T. Landry v. Hornstein, 462 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…iliation of conflicting testimony that negotiations ceased for other reasons rested upon a credibility determination within the province of the factfinder. Povia v. Melvin, 66 So. 2d 494 (Fla.1953); S. Kornreich & Sons, Inc. v. Titan Agencies, Inc., 423 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Hunt v. Palm Springs General Hospital, Inc., 352 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Where substantial evidence supports a jury determination, an appellate court lacks authority to interfere. Estate of Cohen v. Holland, 370 So. 2d 40…
-
Nat'l Constructors, Inc. v. Ellenberg, 681 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…992); Triefler v. Barnett Bank of S. Fla., N.A., 588 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Lee v. Lee, 563 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Malver v. Sheffield Indus., Inc., 502 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); S. Kornreich & Sons, Inc. v. Titan Agencies, Inc., 423 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (14 total)
- Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)
- Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1977)
- Povia v. Melvin, 66 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1953)
- Victor Hotel Owners, Inc. v. Sperling, 104 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Arsenault v. Thomas, 104 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- In re Est. of Joseph Dunbar Wight v. First Nat'l Bank IN ST. Petersburg, 263 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
- Trobaugh v. Trobaugh, 81 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1955)
- Atkins v. Keller, 400 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Jackson v. State, 352 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Mass. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Johansen, 270 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)