GEORGE TUMELTY, APPELLANT,

v.

BURNUP & SIMS, APPELLEES

Citator

Cited By

• Michael and Melissa Stone v. Compuserve Interactive Servs., Inc., 804 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
  …fact remain. If CompuServe’s payment to the Stones was so unreasonably late that it amounted to a breach of contract, then the Stones would be entitled to interest as compensation for the loss of use of the money. See Zucker v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 589 So. 2d 454, 455 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (observing that prejudgment interest is “restitution to compensate a plaintiff for the loss of use of its money over the period of time that a plaintiff is wrongfully deprived of the use of that money”). A finder of fact mus…
• Vining v. Martyn, 660 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
  …we agree with Vining that because the purpose of prejudgment interest is restitution, rather than retribution, the prejudgment interest should only be awarded on the actual amount stolen and not on the treble damages. Zucker v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 589 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (in a worthless check action, creditor could only recover prejudgment interest on face amount of cheek but not on treble damages based on the principle that such interest was restitution and not retribution). Although this court…
• Eaton Vance Distribs., Inc. v. Ulrich, 692 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
  ….” 573 So. 2d at 883. Likewise, prejudgment interest is not available on punitive damages. See Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla.1985); Gilliard v. Wright, 667 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Zucker v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 589 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). We certify that this portion of our opinion is in conflict with Okun v. Litwin Sec., Inc., 652 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 660 So. 2d 713 (Fla.1995). All other issues raised by Vance and Whitaker are affirmed witho…

Authorities Cited

• T.G. LEE Foods, Inc. v. Benny Farley, 544 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)