DESIGN ENGINEERING CORPORATION OF AMERICA, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
PAN AVIATION, INC., A DELAWARE 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.
The court affirmed the judgment below but reversed the $100,000 damages award for delay and wrongful detention of an aircraft, finding the loss was not directly attributable to the detention and was barred by a contractual limitation of liability clause.
A contractual limitation of liability clause bars recovery for consequential damages arising from services performed, and damages for aircraft detention must be directly attributable to the wrongful detention to be recoverable.
[1] A contractual clause limiting liability for loss and consequential damages arising from services performed bars recovery for damages not directly caused by the alleged wr…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“By contract, the parties had agreed that appellant would not be liable for loss, including loss of use and consequential damages, arising out of the services performed by appellant.”
Court explaining the contractual limitation of liability that barred the damages claim.
Design Engineering Corporation repaired an aircraft for Pan Aviation. Pan Aviation claimed $100,000 in damages for a missed annual inspection allegedl…
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 Risk Allocation In Contracts cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the judgment below except as to the award of $100,000 to appellee for damages “suffered as a result of the delay and wrongful detention” of an aircraft. By contract, the parties had agreed that appellant would not be liable for loss, including loss of use and consequential damages, arising out of the services performed by appellant. Further, the record shows clearly that the missed annual aircraft inspection, valued at $100,000, was not directly attributable to the wrongful detention of appellee’s aircraft on March 15, 1983. Instead the loss occurred on February 5, 1983, when appellee’s substitute aircraft missed an inspection because it was pressed into service while the aircraft which is the subject of this action was being repaired by appellant. The evidence shows that the loss resulting from the one day detention of March 15th, long after the missed inspection, was only $1,000.
Where the findings of a trial judge, sitting as fact-finder, are supported by competent substantial evidence, they will not be disturbed by a reviewing court. Oceanic International Corp. v. Lantana Boatyard, 402 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). But where there is no competent evidence in the record to support a trial judge’s decision, the appellate court has a duty to reverse. Hull v. Miami Shores Village, 435 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). In light of this partial reversal, we remand for reconsideration of the amount of costs and fees to be awarded to appellee.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Randy Int'l, Ltd. v. Am. Excess Corp., 501 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…trial court’s decision is manifestly against the weight of the evidence, contrary to the legal effect of the evidence, or unsupported by competent substantial evidence, it becomes our duty to reverse. Design Eng’g Corp. of Am. v. Pan Aviation, Inc., 448 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Hull v. Miami Shores Village, 435 So. 2d 868; Oceanic Int’l Corp. v. Lantana Boatyard, 402 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Zinger v. Gattis, 382 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Here, because there is no competent substantial evi…
-
Sunhouse Constr., Inc. v. Amwest Sur. Ins. Co. & Consol. Techniques, Inc., 841 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…y Int’l, Ltd. v. American Excess Corp., 501 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (when a trial court’s findings are unsupported by competent substantial evidence, it is the appellate court’s duty to reverse); Design Eng’g Corp. of Am. v. Pan Aviation, Inc. 448 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Hull v. Miami Shores Village, 435 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). In its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court below stated that “the court is unable to separate from the work orders and change orders what was in the…
-
Didier Desvigne v. Downtown Towing Co., 865 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…nst the weight of the evidence, or unsupported by competent substantial evidence, it becomes this Court’s duty to reverse. Randy Int’l Ltd. v. Am. Excess Corp., 501 So. 2d 667, 670 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Design Eng’g Corp. of Am. v. Pan Aviation, Inc., 448 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Hull v. Miami Shores Village, 435 So. 2d 868. In the instant case, the trial court’s findings and conclusion of law are not supported by the evidence, where the Record unequivocally reflects that Mr. Desvigne is the owner of th…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Oceanic Int'l Corp. v. Lantana Boatyard, 402 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Hull v. Miami Shores Vill. & Edward A. McCarthy, 435 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)