KNAUF DE COLOMBIA, S.A.S.
v.
CARLOS HAKIM-DACCACH
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.
A jury verdict must be reduced by setoffs from related settlements to prevent double recovery, and pre-judgment interest must be recalculated accordingly.
[1] Setoff statutes require reduction of a judgment by settlements with other defendants in the same action to prevent double recovery, and pre-judgment interest must be reca…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 purpose of the setoff statutes is to prevent a windfall to a plaintiff by way of double recovery.”
Court's explanation for the setoff requirement, citing Addison Constr. Corp. v. Vecellio, 240 So. 3d 757, 764 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).
Knauf de Colombia and related entities appealed a judgment in favor of Carlos Hakim-Daccach. The trial court had rendered a jury verdict of $19.5 mill…
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 Windfall cases and more on FLexlaw
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP and David M. Gersten and Joseph A. Sacher; Sequor Law P.A., and Christopher A. Noel and Edward H. Davis, Jr., and Arnoldo B. Lacayo, for appellee. Before EMAS, LINDSEY and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM.
We affirm on all counts without further discussion, except as to the issue of setoff, to which the Appellee has commendably conceded error. Accordingly, we affirm in part, and reverse in part, and instruct the trial court to set off the jury’s $19.5 million verdict by the $10 million bank defendant settlement and recalculate pre-judgment interest in an amended final judgment. See Addison Constr. Corp. v. Vecellio, 240 So. 3d 757, 764 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (“The purpose of the setoff statutes is to prevent a windfall to a plaintiff by way of double recovery.”).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.