MCLAUGHLIN, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
RIC-MAN INTERNATIONAL, INC., 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.
Prejudgment interest is proper for a quantum meruit recovery, and the trial court should have awarded it from the date each invoice was due.
The trial court awarded direct job costs to McLaughlin based on two invoices from April and May 2002. The court did not award prejudgment interest on …
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
We affirm the final judgment in all respects except for the issue of prejudgment interest.
Préjudgment interest is proper for a recovery based on quantum meruit. McCarthy v. Estate of Krohn, 16 So.3d 193, 195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (law firm entitled to quantum meruit fee after being discharged in contingent fee case is entitled to prejudgment interest from date fee due); Rohrback v. Dauer, 528 So.2d 1362, 1364 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (court erred in refusing prejudgment interest on quantum meruit recovery).
In Florida, damages are liquidated when a verdict fixes the date of loss. Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So.2d 212, 214 (Fla.1985). The date of loss for prejudgment interest is the date payment was due. Id. at 215. When losses occur on separate dates prejudgment interest should be calculated from the date each is due. Herrero v. Pearce, 571 So.2d 96, 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (past due child support, prejudgment interest calculated from date when father should have made each payment); Metro. Dade County v. Bouterse, Perez & Fabregas Architects Planners, Inc., 463 So.2d 526, 527 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (breach of contract for progress payments, prejudgment interest calculated from date each payment due).
In this case, the court awarded direct job costs incurred by McLaughlin based on two invoices and testimony. The first invoice was in April 2002 and the second in May 2002. McLaughlin’s out-of-pocket loss is certain as of these dates. On these two invoices, the court should have awarded prejudgment interest from the date of each.
Reversed only as to prejudgment interest; remainder affirmed,.
GROSS, C.J., and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roberta Santini, M.D. v. Cleveland Clinic Fla., 65 So. 3d 22 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…ed through agreement.15 If such were the case, the earliest possible date upon which Miller’s fees could be due was the date in which Miller first sent invoices to Dr. Santini — sometime in December 2006. See McLaughlin, Inc. v. Ric-Man Int’l, Inc., 31 So. 3d 308, 309 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Erroneous Limitation of Final Judgment Amount “By definition, an attorney’s charging lien cannot attach to property not involved in the suit and not before the court.” Cole v. Kehoe, 710 So. 2d 705, 706 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998…
-
Mem'l Health Sys., Inc. v. Hamilton Staffing Solutions, Inc., 414 So. 3d 350 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Argonaut Ins. Co. v. MAY Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1985)
- Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Bouterse, 463 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Mortell v. Keith, 528 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Ursula S. Herrero v. Pearce, 571 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Rohrback v. Maxwell Dauer, 528 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- McCARTHY v. Est. OF Robert Frederick Krohn, & Hall, Lamb & Hall, P.A., 16 So. 3d 193 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)