OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, A MICHIGAN CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
THE HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, A CONNECTICUT CORPORATION, APPELLEE; THE HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, A CONNECTICUT CORPORATION, APPELLANT, V. OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, A MICHIGAN CORPORATION, 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.
Hartford Fire Insurance Company sought reimbursement from Owners Insurance Company under an additional insured provision after paying damages to Clark Construction Group for property damage to the Tampa Federal Courthouse. The court affirmed Hartford's judgment against Owners but reversed and remanded the prejudgment interest calculation, holding that interest should be calculated from when proceeds would have been due under the policy, not from the date of Hartford's payment.
Owners was liable to Hartford for damages to the courthouse caused by BCI's negligent work under its policy provisions protecting Clark as an additional insured. However, prejudgment interest should be calculated from the date the proceeds would have been due under the Owners policy, not from the date Hartford paid Clark.
[1] A general liability insurer is liable for property damage caused by the negligent work of a subcontractor when the general contractor is an additional insured under the p…
[2] Prejudgment interest on an insurance claim is due from the date the proceeds would have been due under the policy, not from the date of the insurer's payment to its insur…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A partial summary judgment was entered in favor of Hartford against Owners. The summary judgment determined that under its policy Owners was liable to Hartford for any damages to the courthouse caused by the negligent work of BCI.”
Establishes the basis for Hartford's entitlement to recover from Owners under the additional insured provision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBCI, Inc., a subcontractor, was insured under an Owners Insurance Company commercial general liability policy for the Tampa Federal Courthouse constru…
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 Appeal From Summary Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
CANADY, Judge.
These consolidated cases relate to a claim made under a commercial general liability policy issued by Owners Insurance Company. The claim was for property damage which occurred during the construction of the Tampa Federal Courthouse.
The Owners policy named BCI, Inc., a subcontractor on the courthouse construction project, as the insured. Clark Construction Group, the general contractor on the project, was an additional insured under the Owners policy. Hartford Fire Insurance Company insured Clark under a builder’s risk policy. After paying Clark for the property damage to the courthouse, Hartford made a first-party claim under the Owners policy. Hartford’s claim was based on the status of Clark-Hartford’s insured-as an additional insured under the Owners policy. A partial summary judgment was entered in favor of Hartford against Owners. The summary judgment determined that under its policy Owners was liable to Hartford for any damages to the courthouse caused by the negligent work of BCI. Ultimately, Hartford obtained a judgment against Owners based on a jury verdict.
On appeal, Owners challenges the basis for the judgment on various grounds. Hartford appeals an order granting prejudgment interest and challenges the trial court’s calculation of the amount of interest awarded. We conclude that the arguments raised by Owners lack merit and, therefore, affirm the judgment in favor of Hartford. We will not further address Owner’s appeal. We conclude, however, that the trial court erred in its calculation of prejudgment interest due to Hartford. We therefore reverse the order awarding prejudgment interest.
The trial court determined that prejudgment interest was due from the date of Hartford’s payment to Clark and calculated the prejudgment interest on that basis. In the circumstances present here — where Hartford’s claim against Owners was based on Clark’s status as an additional insured under the Owners policy — the prejudgment interest awarded by the trial court was inadequate.
In Taylor v. New Hampshire Insurance Co., 489 So. 2d 207, 207 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), we held that where a claim for property damage is made by an insured on an insurance policy “prejudgment interest [is due] from the date that the proceeds would have been due under the policy.” See also Biscayne Supermarket, Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 485 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). The principle set forth in Taylor applies to the instant case. We therefore reverse the order awarding prejudgment interest with instructions that the trial court recalculate the prejudgment interest based on the date the proceeds for the loss would have been due under the Owners policy.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
FULMER and COVINGTON, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Biscayne Supermarket, Inc. v. The Travelers Ins. Co., 485 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Taylor v. N.H. Ins. Co. of Manchester, 489 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)