THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
FLORIDA ROCK AND SAND COMPANY, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
Travelers Indemnity Company appealed a jury verdict in favor of Florida Rock and Sand Company on a payment bond claim. The court affirmed the jury verdict but reversed the trial court's calculation of prejudgment interest, holding that interest must accrue from each separate payment due date when the principal defaulted, not from ninety days after the last delivery.
The court affirmed the jury verdict finding liability but reversed the prejudgment interest calculation. Prejudgment interest must accrue from each separate date when Pro-Built defaulted on its payment obligation to Florida Rock, not from ninety days after delivery. Postjudgment interest should then accrue on the entire judgment amount, including prejudgment interest.
[1] A jury verdict is supported by substantial competent evidence when the record contains sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict.
[2] Prejudgment interest accrues from the date of default on a payment obligation to a material supplier.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 begins to accrue from the time the principal defaults in its payment obligation to its material supplier.”
Establishes the legal standard for when prejudgment interest accrual begins on payment bond claims
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePro-Built had a payment obligation to Florida Rock for materials supplied. The obligation had three separate payment due dates, which Pro-Built failed…
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 Competent Substantial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
As far as the main appeal is concerned, the record contains substantial competent evidence to support the jury’s verdict. See Salazar v. Marrero, 670 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Hollub v. Clancy, 648 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Accordingly, the judgment based upon that verdict is affirmed.
In connection with the cross-appeal, we find that the appellee/cross-appellant, Florida Rock & Sand Company (hereinafter “Florida Rock”) is correct in contending that the court erred in its calculation of the interest that is owed to Florida Rock. Prejudgment interest begins to accrue from the time the principal defaults in its payment obligation to its material supplier. E.g., Home Owners Ins. Co. v. Charles Sales Corp., 222 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); see also Peter Marich & Assoc.s., Inc. v. Powell, 365 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)(holding that plaintiff is due interest from the date the debt was due); Commonwealth ex. rel. Fort Pitt Bridge Works v. Continental Cas. Co., 429 Pa. 366, 240 A. 2d 493 (1968).
In the instant case, the trial court erred in determining that prejudgment interest would only begin to accrue ninety days after the last payment due date for the materials supplied by Florida Rock.1 Since there were three separate payment due dates on which Pro-Built did not meet its payment obligation to Florida Rock, the trial court must recalculate the prejudgment interest from each separate due date, where the principal defaulted, until August 15, 1994, the date final judgment was entered in favor of Florida Rock.
Once the trial court has recalculated the amount of prejudgment interest, that amount should be added to the final judgment awarded to Florida Rock and, under the authority of the Florida Supreme Court’s recent decision in Quality Engineered Installation, Inc. v. Higley South, Inc., 670 So. 2d 929 (Fla.1996), postjudgment interest should then accrue on the entire amount awarded to Florida Rock (which would include prejudgment interest).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
. Although the cross-appellee argues that the language of the bond did not permit prejudgment interest to accrue until ninety days after Florida Rock’s last delivery, there is no provision in the bond which governs the accrual of prejudgment interest. The bond simply indicates that a claimant may not file a claim until ninety days after the claimant's last delivery.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Astaldi Constr. Corp. v. M. Held Plumbing Co., Inc., 710 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…nal judgment pursuant to the jury verdict. We affirm the final judgment because the verdict on all issues submitted to the jury for consideration is supported by substantial' competent evidence. See Travelers Indem. Co. v. Florida Rock & Sand Co., 682 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (affirming judgment based on jury verdict that was supported by substantial competent evidence); Archilla v. President Supermarket, Inc., 654 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (same). We further hold that the trial court did not abu…
Authorities Cited
- Quality Engineered Installation, Inc. v. Higley S., Inc., 670 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 1996)
- Peter Marich & Assocs., Inc. v. Powell, 365 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Salazar v. Guillermina Garcia Marrero, 670 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- State v. Tiedge, 670 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Home Owners Ins. Co. v. Charles Sales Corp. OF Orlando, 222 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Hollub v. Clancy, 648 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- The Katz Fam. P'ship v. Placenti, 648 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)