MONSANTO COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
TOM FUQUA, 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.
Monsanto appealed a judgment awarding disability benefits of $41,968, challenging the trial court's inclusion of future damages accruing after the complaint was filed. The First District Court of Appeal held that damages for periodic disability benefits can only be awarded for amounts that accrued before the action was instituted, reversing and remanding the judgment.
A court may not award damages for periodic disability benefits that accrue after the action is filed; damages can only be awarded for benefits that had accrued by the time the action was instituted.
[1] In an action for periodic disability benefits, a court may only award benefits that have accrued at the time the action was filed.
[2] A judgment awarding disability benefits cannot include amounts for benefits that had not accrued at the time the lawsuit was initiated.
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 judgment could be rendered only for the benefits that had accrued at the time of the institution of the action”
Establishes the controlling rule from Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Knight that damages are limited to amounts accrued before filing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMonsanto was the defendant in an action for disability benefits under an employment contract brought by Tom Fuqua. The trial court calculated future r…
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 Present Value Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant in an action for disability benefits under an employment contract, has appealed from a final judgment entered by the Circuit Court for Escambia County, awarding benefits and damages in the amount of $41,968 for benefits and future damages.
The dual question presented for our determination in this appeal is whether, in an action for periodic benefits based upon permanent and total disability, the court should award damages that might accrue subsequent to the filing of the complaint and subsequent to the rendition of the verdict.
In support of its contention that the court should not award such damages, the appellant cites and relies upon the following two Florida cases:
In Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Knight, 130 Fla. 733, 178 So. 898 (1938), *497an action was brought for monthly disability benefits under an insurance policy. The company had paid periodic benefits for several years and then discontinued them effective October 25, 1934. The insured filed his action in March of 1935 seeking benefits to the date of the judgment. A judgment was rendered for benefits up to the date of trial, but the Supreme Court of Florida held that a judgment could be rendered only for the benefits that had accrued at the time of the institution of the action.
In Levenson v. Motor Union (Aviation) Orion Ins. Co., 176 So.2d 125 (Fla.App.1965), a declaratory action was brought for monthly disability benefits under an insurance policy. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the judgment based thereon awarded benefits subsequent to the filing of the action. The Third District Court of Appeal modified the judgment, holding that the trial judge was in error in including benefits after the date of the filing of the action.
In the case at bar the court calculated the future retirement benefits and future insurance, and arrived at a total future loss of $99,749, then reduced that amount to its present value with a 5% discount factor, producing a figure for future losses of $29,533. The court then added to that amount the sums it calculated for past losses and entered the judgment for the total of $41,968.
Upon the authority of the above Knight and Levenson cases, we hold that in the case before us the court erred in including in the judgment appealed from herein amounts for benefits that had not accrued at the time this action was filed.
Therefore, that judgment must be, and it is, reversed and the cause remanded with directions for future proceedings not inconsistent with the views hereinabove set forth.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
RAWLS, C. J., and JOHNSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Knight, 130 Fla. 733 (Fla. 1937)
- Davis v. State, 176 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- Willis v. State, 176 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)