CHARLES BUZBEE & SONS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
THOMAS A. FALKNER, 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.
This case concerns whether a farmer was entitled to prejudgment interest on damages awarded for a crop destroyed by herbicide drift. The appellate court held that prejudgment interest should have been awarded from the date the loss was liquidated, not from the date of the verdict.
Yes, Buzbee was entitled to prejudgment interest from the date its loss was liquidated, which was July 30, 1987, as determined by the end-of-season accounting report. The trial court erred in denying prejudgment interest from that date.
[1] A plaintiff is entitled, as a matter of law, to prejudgment interest at the statutory rate from the date of loss when a verdict liquidates damages on the plaintiff's out-…
[2] Damages become liquidated for the purpose of prejudgment interest when the plaintiff realizes in dollars the degree of loss sustained.
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“when a verdict liquidates damages on a plaintiff’s out-of-pocket, pecuniary losses, plaintiff is entitled, as a matter of law, to prejudgment interest at the statutory rate from the date of that loss.”
This quote establishes the legal principle for awarding prejudgment interest on liquidated damages.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBuzbee & Sons, a farming company, sued Falkner, another farmer, for damages to its tomato crop caused by Falkner's herbicide spraying. The herbicide d…
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 Date Of Loss cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Judge.
Buzbee & Sons, Inc., a large scale vegetable farming concern in Ruskin, Florida, sued Falkner, another farmer, for damages to part of Buzbee’s tomato crop resulting from Falkner’s spraying of the herbicide Roundup on his cucumber fields in the spring of 1987. Falkner sprayed when wind conditions caused the herbicide to drift onto Buzbee’s crops; and the Roundup destroyed a large portion of the tomatoes on Buzbee’s field. After a trial the jury. awarded Buzbee damages in an amount exceeding $249,000.00.
The trial court, however, denied Buzbee’s motion for prejudgment interest and awarded interest only from the date of the verdict. That ruling was in error.
The trial court denied Buzbee’s motion for prejudgment interest ostensibly on the ground that the date of loss could not be determined.
The record reflects, however, that Buzbee’s damages became liquidated at the moment when the packing house provided Buzbee with the end of season accounting report and distributed to him the net proceeds from the sale of the tomatoes. That date was July 30, 1987. In our view, the jury would have been at a loss to determine the amount of damages without reference to the difference between the proceeds distributed to Buzbee and the normal anticipated return, facts which became apparent on July 30, 1987. Other dates associated with Buzbee’s demand for compensation are irrelevant. No Florida case has yet changed the essential aspect of Argonaut Insurance Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla.1985), that: “when a verdict liquidates damages on a plaintiff’s out-of-pocket, pecuniary losses, plaintiff is entitled, as a matter of law, to prejudgment interest at the statutory rate from the date of that loss.” That date, in this instance, was July 30, 1987, when Buz-bee realized in dollars the degree of loss he sustained as a result of the Roundup.
Accordingly, we reverse the order denying prejudgment interest and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
RYDER, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Underhill Fancy Veal, Inc. v. Padot, 677 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…te of the loss, only that the value was ascertainable at that time. State Farm Fire and Casualty v. Albert, 618 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), rev. denied, 629 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 1993); Phillips, supra. See also Charles Buzbee & Sons, Inc. v. Falkner, 585 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991): In the instant case, the damages awarded reflect the damage done to the vested property right in the business at the time Hester left. The measure of damages here was the decrease in the value of the business at that time, which…
-
Vining v. Martyn, 660 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…of damages in a civil theft ease). We are not persuaded by Vining’s argument that Martyn was not entitled to prejudgment interest because there was no date certain for the loss set out in the verdict form. See Charles Buzbee & Sons, Inc. v. Falkner, 585 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (reversible error not to award prejudgment interest on ostensible basis that date of loss could not be determined where it was apparent from the record). However, we agree with Vining that because the purpose of prejudgment intere…
-
RDR Computer Consulting Corp. v. Eurodirect, Inc., 884 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…nequitable). This court has held that it is not necessary for the jury to actually determine the date on which the damages were liquidated, so long as that date is clear from the context of the litigation. See Charles Buzbee & Sons, Inc. v. Falkner, 585 So. 2d 1190, 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); see also Vining v. Martyn, 660 So. 2d 1081, 1082 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). In this case it is clear that the jury liquidated damages in the amount of $49,214.40, the exact amount due no later than April 28, 2000, when the contra…
Previewing 3 of 7 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)