TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, SUBROGEE FOR JOHN FORTE, APPELLANT,
v.
SKYWAY MARINE, 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.
An insurance subrogee sued a marine repair company for damages to a boat that was stolen while in the company's custody. The trial court entered judgment for the defendant, and the appellate court affirmed, finding that the plaintiff failed to present evidence of the boat's value after repairs, which is required to establish damages under Florida law.
The court affirmed the judgment for the defendant because the plaintiff failed to present evidence of the boat's value after repairs. When using the cost-of-repair method to establish damages, Florida law requires evidence of both the pre-damage value and post-repair value to determine if there is any loss in value after repairs.
[1] Damages for harm to chattels, where not a total destruction in value, may be measured by the difference in value before and after the harm, or at the plaintiff's election…
[2] To recover damages based on the cost of repair for harm to chattels, a plaintiff must present evidence of the chattel's value before the damage and its value after the re…
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“The rule of damages applicable to the case at bar is succinctly stated in Restatement, Torts, § 928 (1939) as follows: 'Where a person is entitled to a judgment for harm to chattels not amounting to a total destruction in value, the damages include compensation for (a) the difference between the value of the chattel before the harm and the value after the harm or, at the plaintiffs election, the reasonable cost of repair or restoration where feasible, with due allowance for any difference between the original value and the value after repairs'”
Establishes the applicable legal standard for measuring damages to property, requiring consideration of value before and after damage when using cost-of-repair method
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe boat owner delivered his vessel to Skyway Marine for engine repairs. While in the defendant's custody, the boat was stolen and subsequently recove…
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.
This appeal is by the plaintiff below from an adverse judgment entered on trial without a jury, in an action by an insurer sub-rogee following payment by it of a loss on an insured boat, for which loss it was claimed the defendant was liable.
The record discloses the owner of the boat delivered it to the defendant-appellee Skyway Marine, Inc. for certain engine repairs and servicing to be performed thereon by the latter. While so bailed the boat was stolen. When recovered it was found to have been damaged. The boat was then examined by a marine surveyor who determined the necessary repairs would involve a cost of $2,356.02, which figure appears to have been accepted by the owner and the defendant as reflecting the repair expense. The owner’s insurer paid said amount to the insured, and thereupon brought this action against Skyway Marine, Inc.
At trial the plaintiff presented evidence of such cost of repair, and presented testimony of the marine surveyor that the value of the boat before the damage was five or six thousand dollars. No evidence was presented as to the value of the boat after or with the benefit of the said repairs. The failure to present evidence of such value constituted an absence of proof for which the judgment must be affirmed.
In Airtech Service, Inc. v. MacDonald Construction Co., Fla.App.1963, 150 So.2d 465, 466, this court dealt with the question of whether the measure of damages in such a case is the difference between the value of the property before the damage and the value thereof after the damage, or whether the damages can be established by showing the cost of repair. With reference thereto the court, adopting as applicable the law as stated in Restatement of the Law, said:
“The rule of damages applicable to the case at bar is succinctly stated in Restatement, Torts, § 928 (1939) as follows:
‘Where a person is entitled to a judgment for harm to chattels not amounting to a total destruction in value, the damages include compensation for
‘(a) the difference between the value of the chattel before the harm and the value after the harm or, at the plaintiffs election, the reasonable cost of repair or restoration where feasible, with due allowance for any difference between the original value and the value after repairs, and
‘(b) the loss of use.’ ”
It will be observed from the foregoing quotation from the Airtech Service case that where the cost of repairs is used as an alternative method of establishing damages it is considered necessary also to submit both the value before the damage and of the value thereof after repair, in order that due allowance may be made for “any difference between the original value and the value after repairs.”
Here there was some evidence of the value before the damage to the boat, if the testimony stating five or six thousand dollars can be considered evidence establishing a value prior to damage, but no evidence of the value after repairs. Whereupon, on authority of Airtech Service, Inc., supra, the judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Keyes Co. v. Shea, 372 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…question in some detail. There are a number of Florida cases dealing with the measure of damage for injury to personal property: Hillside Van Lines, Inc. v. Matalon, 297 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1974); Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Skyway Marine, Inc. 251 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1971); Airtech Service, Inc. v. MacDonald Construction Co. 150 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1963). However, a workable statement of the measure of damage to be used in this case of injury to real property is not so easily found in the Flor…
-
Alonso v. Fernandez, 379 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…ict could not properly include the costs of repair because Fernandez did not testify as to the “market value” of his truck before the accident, after the accident and after the repairs. It is true that Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Skyway Marine, Inc., 251 So. 2d 327 (Fla.3d DCA 1971), a case involving damage to a boat, states, citing no authority for the proposition, that such testimony is affirmatively required to support such a claim. But the only reason that the before-and-after market value of the property…1 / 3
-
McHALE v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 409 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…respect to each appellee because neither appellee presented evidence of market value of the damaged vehicle before and after repairs. The court in Alonso, supra, applied the principle of law from Traveler’s Indemnity Company v. Skyway Marine, Inc., 251 So. 2d 327 (Fla.3d DCA 1971), which we think was incorrectly decided. Traveler’s Indemnity Co., supra, also held that where a plaintiff presented evidence as to value before the damage and the cost of repair but failed to present evidence of the value after re…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Airtech Serv., Inc. v. MacDONALD Constr. Co., 150 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)