NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, APPELLANT,
v.
LANNY GELFAND AND SONDRA GELFAND, 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 the Gelfands were entitled to pre-judgment interest on their award.
The Gelfands recovered a jury verdict against their insurance agent and its errors and omissions carrier for failure to secure appropriate fire insura…
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 Statutory Rate cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Based upon its failure to secure appropriate fire insurance coverage,1 the Gelfands recovered a jury verdict and judgment in the amount of the fire loss against their agent, Traurig Insurance Company, and Traurig’s errors and omissions-liability carrier, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh. The points presented in the appeal taken by National Union alone are so patently frivolous that we have assessed a $2,500 attorney’s fee against it under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1983).
The Gelfands’ cross-appeal challenges the denial of pre-judgment interest. We agree that they are entitled to such interest at the statutory rate commencing when the proceeds of the fire insurance coverage, if secured, would have been due under the policy. Miller v. First Service Corp., 471 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); see generally Argonaut Insurance Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla.1985). After remand, that amount shall be calculated2 and awarded to the plaintiffs in an additional judgment against Traurig and National Union.
Affirmed in part, remanded in part.
. An Old Republic Insurance Company policy was secured by Traurig but it did not describe and therefore did not cover the premises which were subsequently burned.
. The Old Republic policy, see supra, note 1, provides for payment 30 days after proof of loss. The trial court will be required, therefore, to determine when the proof of loss (which was subsequently correctly rejected by Old Republic) was submitted by the Gelfands and to calculate interest from the date 30 days thereafter.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D.R. Mead & Co. v. Cheshire OF Fla., Inc., 489 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…rg, 147 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962). We reject the other claim of harmful evidentiary error on this issue. .We find no merit in either the appellants’ challenge to the award of pre-judgment interest, National Union Fire. Insurance Co. v. Gelfand, 477 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Miller v. First Service Corp., 471 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), or Cheshire’s claim to attorney’s fees. See American Home Assurance Co. v. City of Opa Locka, 368 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).…
-
Biscayne Supermarket, Inc. v. The Travelers Ins. Co., 485 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…s. We agree with the plaintiffs that, in the event they are successful at the new trial, they are entitled to prejudgment interest from the date that the proceeds would have been due under the policy. National Union Fire Insurance Co. v. Gelfand, 477 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Miller v. First Service Corp., 471 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); see also Argonaut Insurance Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla.1985). Reversed and remanded.…
-
Columbia Cas. Co. v. S. Flapjacks, Inc., 868 F.2d 1217 (11th Cir. 1989)…1985) (interest makes plaintiff whole from date of loss). Despite the appraisal provision, the court found that the policy obligated Columbia to pay claims within thirty days after Southern filed a proof of loss. See Nat’l Union Ins. Co. v. Gelfand, 477 So. 2d 28, 29 (Fla. 3d D.C.A.1985) (insured entitled to interest from time proceeds due under the policy). [*1219] According to the district court, the appraisers and the umpire merely functioned as a finder of fact similar to a jury, and therefore, the appra…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Argonaut Ins. Co. v. MAY Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1985)
- Miller v. First Serv. Corp. OF the Fla. Keys, 471 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)