CHICAGO INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT/CROSS APPELLEE,
v.
ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY, ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES/CROSS APPELLANTS; MAY PLUMBING COMPANY, NORTHERN ASSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA AND COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANTS/CROSS APPELLEES, V. ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL., APPELLEES/CROSS APPELLANTS; CHICAGO INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT, V. ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY, ETC., ET AL., 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.
The court held that prejudgment interest cannot be awarded when damages are unliquidated and uncertain until a jury verdict resolves fault and amount.
An insurance company, after paying for fire damage, filed a subrogation action against a plumbing company, alleging negligence. The jury awarded damag…
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 Unliquidated Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
This case arises out of a fire at the Colony Club Apartments for which the owner’s Insurance Company paid $249,-360.51 for the loss. Thereafter the Insurance Company filed the instant subrogation action against appellants May Plumbing, claiming the fire had been caused by the negligence of an employee of the Plumbing Company. Judgment was entered for the Insurance Company in the amount of $187,-020.38 after a reduction for 25% comparative negligence charged against the owner. The trial court awarded prejudgment inter est. We find error only as to this award of interest.
The comparative negligence factor made any award of damages uncertain and therefore unliquidated. We are persuaded by the case McCoy v. Rudd, 367 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), in which the owner of some buildings sued the parents of a boy who caused the fire. The court disallowed the interest awarded by the trial court saying:
Where the judgment is for damages, interest may not be added to the principal award unless there can be a conclusive determination of an exact amount due and a date from which interest can be computed. See Bryan and Sons Corp. v. Klefstad, 265 So. 2d 382, 385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). There was a dispute between the parties hereto not only as to fault but also as to the amount of appel-lees’ loss. This dispute was settled only by the jury. Assuming that the appellant, McCoy, was negligent from the outset of the dispute there was no way that he could have reasonably known with any degree of certainty or definiteness how much he owed the Rudds until the jury settled the issue by their verdict.
See also Parker’s Mechanical Contractors v. Eastpoint Water & Sewer District, 367 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
The award of prejudgment interest is reversed and this cause remanded for the entry of a judgment in accordance herewith.
We find no reversible error in the remaining points on appeal.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DOWNEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Argonaut Ins. Co. v. MAY Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1985)…EHRLICH, Justice. This cause is before the Court because the decision of the district court of appeal in Chicago Insurance Co. v. Argonaut Insurance Co., 451 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), directly and expressly conflicts with the decision of another district court of appeal. Bergen Brunswig Corporation v. State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 415 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). We have jurisdic…
Authorities Cited
- Bryan & Sons Corp. v. Sivert Klefstad, 265 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- McCOY v. Rudd, 367 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Parker's Mech. Contractor's, Inc. v. Eastpoint Water & Sewer Dist., 367 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)