MACK K. PHILLIPS, APPELLANT,
v.
EDWIN PARRISH, 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.
In this automobile negligence case, Phillips appeals a jury verdict finding him 80% at fault and awards to Parrish of $2,520 plus prejudgment interest. The court affirms the award of prejudgment interest, reasoning that it is merely another element of damages that must be included when calculating whether a judgment falls within the offer-of-judgment statute's 25% threshold.
The trial court correctly awarded prejudgment interest because it is a proper element of pecuniary damages in property damage cases. Since prejudgment interest is an element of damages, it must be included in determining whether a judgment activates the offer-of-judgment statute's provisions; including prejudgment interest, the judgment was not more than 25% less than the offer, so attorney's fees and costs are not awardable.
[1] Prejudgment interest is an element of pecuniary damages in property damage cases.
[2] Once damages are liquidated as of a certain date, the award of prejudgment interest is a mathematical calculation for the trial judge.
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“Prejudgment interest is merely another element of pecuniary damages.”
Establishes the foundational principle that prejudgment interest is treated as part of damages, not a separate remedy
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePhillips and his codefendant, Superior Insurance Company, served an amended offer of judgment on September 12, 1989. The jury returned a verdict on Au…
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 Pecuniary Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
WOLF, Judge.
Phillips, the defendant at trial, appeals the final judgment entered upon a jury verdict, finding Phillips 80 percent negligent in an automobile accident. Phillips raises three points on appeal. The first two issues relate to whether he is entitled to recover costs and attorney’s fees which occurred since the date that he filed an offer of judgment pursuant to section 768.-79, Florida Statutes (1987).1 The third issue is whether the trial court erred in awarding prejudgment interest as part of the verdict. We affirm as to the third issue, and in light of our ruling as to that issue, it is unnecessary to address the other issues on appeal.
On September 12, 1989, Phillips and his codefendant, Superior Insurance Company, served an amended offer of judgment pursuant to section 768.79, Florida Statutes. Appellee did not respond to the offer and, therefore, it was considered rejected. On August 10, 1990, the jury returned a verdict finding that the damages suffered by the appellee amounted to $3,150. This amount reflected a reasonable rental value of the subject vehicle during the time that Parrish’s vehicle was being repaired. Appellee, Parrish, was found to be 20 percent at fault, so the jury verdict was reduced to $2,520. Final judgment in the matter was entered on September 6, 1990. The judgment awarded appel-lee $2,520 plus prejudgment interest as of May 29, 1987, in the amount of $967.79.
In Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla.1985), the Florida Supreme Court held that prejudgment interest is awardable in property damage cases. See also Herrero v. Pearce, 571 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Prejudgment interest is merely another element of pecuniary damages. Argonaut, supra. Once a verdict has liquidated the damage as of a certain date, the awarding of prejudgment interest is merely a mathematical calculation which can be done by the trial judge. Herrero, supra at 97. In the instant case, damages were fixed as of a certain date, and the trial judge was correct to award prejudgment interest.
Since prejudgment interest is merely another element of damages, it is properly included in determining whether a judgment is so deficient as to activate the provisions of section 768.79, Florida Statutes. If this amount is utilized, the judgment in the instant case was not more than 25 percent less than the offer of $4,546.52 and, thus, attorney’s fees and costs are not awardable pursuant to that statute.
Affirmed.
WIGGINTON, J., and WENTWORTH, Senior Judge, concur. . Neither party raised the constitutionality of § 768.79, Fla.Stat. (1989), in the instant case, and in light of our holding herein, it is unnecessary for us to discuss that issue.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leyton F. Perez v. Cir. City Stores, Inc., 721 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…nterest from the judgment for Section 768.79 purposes. See Baker Protective Services v. FP Inc., 659 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), review denied, 669 So. 2d 250 (Fla.1996); Persons v. Pelaez, 613 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Phillips v. Parrish, 585 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). . The courts in Mincin and Williams interpreted an earlier version of the demand for judgment statute. See Mincin v. Short, 662 So. 2d at 1324 n. 1; Williams v. Brochu, 578 So. 2d at 492 n. 1. Although the earlier version was s…
-
Peavy v. Dyer, 605 So. 2d 1330 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…nal judgment restores to the plaintiff. Once this element of damages is awarded in the final judgment, prejudgment interest, like all other elements of damage, becomes part of a single total sum adjudged to be due and owing. See Phillips v. Parrish, 585 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1st DCA1991). The amount awarded for prejudgment interest, like all other components of the “judgment”, automatically bears interest as provided by section 55.03, Florida Statutes. In this regard, we note that the forms for use with the Rules…
-
Underhill Fancy Veal, Inc. v. Padot, 677 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…ent interest may be awarded in tort cases as to those damages where there has been an ascertainable out-of-pocket loss occurring at a specific time prior to the entry of the judgment. Alvarado v. Rice, 614 So. 2d 498 (Fla.1993); Phillips v. Parrish, 585 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Under this theory, prejudgment interest has been upheld in incidents involving the loss of vested property rights. Alvarado, supra (citing Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla.1985) (holding that prejudgmen…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Argonaut Ins. Co. v. MAY Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1985)
- Ursula S. Herrero v. Pearce, 571 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)