CAROLYN BURTLESS, APPELLANT,
v.
ALEJANDRO DAMIAN PALLERO AND ANTONIO MANAGO, 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 proper measure of damages for total loss of personal property is its value on the date of loss, but remanded for consideration of the insurance deductible.
Appellant's vehicle was destroyed in a collision with appellee's vehicle. Appellant sought to recover the difference between the vehicle's value and t…
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.
FENNELLY, JOHN E., Associate Judge.
The appellant, plaintiff below, appeals the trial court’s dismissal of her complaint with prejudice. We affirm in part and remand to the trial court for further action.
Appellant’s auto was totally destroyed as a result of a collision with the vehicle driven by appellee, Alejandro Pallero, and owned by appellee, Antonio Manago. In her complaint, appellant sought to recover the difference between the value of the vehicle on the date of the accident and the remaining balance on the car loan for the vehicle, approximately $2,368.00.
It is, of course, well established that the appropriate measure of damages for total loss of personal property is the property’s value on the date of loss. McDonald Air Conditioning, Inc. v. John Brown, Inc., 285 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). This rule of recovery was only recently reaffirmed in Polyglycoat v. Hirsch Distributors, Inc., 442 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). The trial court action in dismissing appellant’s complaint with prejudice as to the balance on the car loan was eminently correct and is affirmed.
Appellees concur that appellant is entitled to recover for the deductible amount of her insurance policy, i.e., $500.00. This action is remanded to the trial court for action not inconsistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED and REMANDED.
ANSTEAD and STONE, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (26 total)
-
Mordica v. State, 618 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…90-3150 because the oral pronouncement indicates that the revocation was based in part on the battery of a law enforcement officer charge in case number 91-1160, an offense not charged in the affidavit of violation of probation. Harrington v. State, 570 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Because it cannot be determined from the record whether the trial court would have revoked Mordica’s probation absent consideration of the battery of a law enforcement officer charge, we also remand for reconsideration of the re…
-
Perkins v. State, 842 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…ated probation as neither the violation of probation affidavit nor the violation report specifically alleged that appellant violated condition five of his probation when he broke a stockade rule by testing positive for alcohol); Harrington v. State, 570 So. 2d 1140, 1142 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (reversing and remanding the trial court’s finding that the appellant violated probation for smoking marijuana as the affidavit specified that the intoxicant used was cocaine). “An affidavit upon which a permanent revocati…
-
Cherington v. State, 24 So. 3d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…conduct not charged in the affidavit constitutes a deprivation of the defendant’s right to due process of law. See Perkins, 842 So. 2d at 277. A revocation based on uncharged conduct generally requires reversal. For example, in Harrington v. State, 570 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), the affida [*661] vit of violation alleged that Harrington had violated condition (6) of her probation by using intoxicants; to wit; cocaine to excess and visiting places where intoxicants, drugs, or other dangerous substances…
Previewing 3 of 26 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Polyglycoat Corp. v. Hirsch Distribs., Inc., 442 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- McDONALD AIR Conditioning, Inc. v. John Brown, Inc., 285 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)