STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT F. DIETERLE AND MAXINE DIETERLE, HIS WIFE, 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 Florida Department of Environmental Protection appealed a cost judgment that included prejudgment interest running from the date of an interlocutory cost award rather than from the final cost judgment. The court reversed the prejudgment interest portion, holding that Florida law prohibits prejudgment interest awards against the state and its agencies.
The court held that awarding interest on costs from September 15, 2000 (the date of the interlocutory cost order) in a judgment entered November 27, 2000 constituted an impermissible award of prejudgment interest prohibited by Florida statute, and that part of the judgment must be reversed.
[1] The State of Florida has not waived sovereign immunity for prejudgment interest on tort claims.
[2] Government tortfeasors are not liable for prejudgment interest.
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“The state and its agencies and subdivisions shall be liable for tort claims in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances, but liability shall not include punitive damages or interest for the period before judgment.”
Statutory prohibition on prejudgment interest against state agencies
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert and Maxine Dieterle obtained a tort judgment against the Department of Environmental Protection in May 2000. They moved for costs, and the tria…
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 Tort Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, J.
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection appeals a cost judgment against it. We reverse that part of the judgment which awards prejudgment interest.
I.
Robert and Maxine Dieterle obtained a tort judgment against the Department in May, 2000. Plaintiffs-appellees then moved for a cost award.
The trial court entered an interlocutory order awarding costs to the plaintiffs on September 15, 2000. The Department moved for reconsideration. After further proceedings, the court entered a cost judgment on November 27, 2000. The order specified that the cost award would bear interest running from September 15, 2000, which was the date of the first hearing on the motion for costs. The Department has appealed. II.
While Florida has waived sovereign immunity, the State has not waived immunity for prejudgment interest. “The state and its agencies and subdivisions shall be liable for tort claims in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances, but liability shall not include punitive damages or interest for the period before judgment.” § 768.28(5), Fla. Stat. (2000) (emphasis added). “Unlike private tort-feasors, government tortfeasors are not liable for punitive damages or prejudgment interest.” Avallone v. Board of County Commissioners of Citrus County, 493 So. 2d 1002, 1004 (Fla.1986).
In this ease the cost judgment was entered November 27, 2000, but it provided that interest would run on costs from September 15, 2000. This amounted to an impermissible award of prejudgment interest.
The plaintiffs argue that the only relevant judgment is the underlying May, 2000 judgment on their tort claim. The plaintiffs say that one effect of the May judgment was to determine that they were entitled to costs as prevailing parties. The plaintiffs urge that including interest in a later cost award is not truly “prejudgment” so long as the interest is for a period after the underlying tort judgment. We disagree.
The established legislative policy is that prejudgment interest will not be awarded. It was impermissible to enter a cost judgment which included interest running from an earlier date. That part of the cost judgment must be deleted.
Accordingly, the cost judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for entry of an amended judgment. Consistent with the terms of the statute, the amended judgment may be entered nunc pro tunc to the date of the original cost judgment, which was November 27, 2000.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith:
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Revenue v. Nicks, 815 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…An additional issue presented in this case is the trial court’s award of prejudgment interest. The State’s sovereign immunity precludes an award of prejudgment interest in the absence of a statutory waiver. State, Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. v. Dieterle, 786 So. 2d 1244, 1245 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). The Florida Supreme Court has noted that “the government is not hable for interest in the absence of an express statutory provision or stipulation by the government that interest will be paid. The general immunity from inte…
Authorities Cited
- Avallone v. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Citrus Cnty., 493 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 1986)