ALLSTATES VAN LINES CORP., APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES LEBENSTEIN AND JAN LEBENSTEIN, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
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.
Allstates Van Lines appeals a judgment for $3,300 awarded to the Lebensteins for lost household goods during a move. The court affirmed liability based on an agency relationship between Allstates and the moving company that actually transported the goods, but reversed the damages award because the trial court improperly used original purchase price rather than market value at the time of loss.
Allstates is liable for the loss because an agency relationship existed between Allstates and Jones Miami Beach Express, making Allstates responsible for the moving company's actions. However, the damages award was improper because the correct measure of damages for lost personal property is its market value on the date of loss, not the original purchase price.
[1] An agency relationship can be established by substantial competent evidence supporting the finding of such a relationship between a moving company and its contractor.
[2] A moving company is liable for the loss of personal property sustained by customers when an agency relationship exists between the moving company and the entity that hand…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“there was substantial competent evidence contained therein to support the finding of the trial judge that an agency relationship existed between the defendant-appellant and Jones Miami Beach Express and thereupon holding appellant liable for the loss sustained by the appellees”
Establishes that an agency relationship between the moving company and Allstates made Allstates liable for the moving company's actions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Lebensteins hired Allstates Van Lines to move and store their household furnishings. Allstates's representative provided an estimate, and Jones Mi…
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 Market Value cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellant seeks review of a judgment in the sum of $3,300 plus costs entered in favor of plaintiff-appellees in this action to recover damages resulting from the loss of certain items of household furniture and other personalty.
Plaintiff-appellees, Mr. and Mrs. Leben-stein, having had previous experience with the defendant-appellant, Allstates Van Lines Corporation, contacted the appellant with regards to moving and possible storage of their household furnishings and other items of personal property. Appellant’s representative responded and gave appel-lees an estimate of charges therefor. On the day designated for the pick up, Jones Miami Beach Express arrived at the residence of appellees and moved their possessions which were placed in storage. Thereafter, when plaintiff-appellees called for the delivery of their furniture and other belongings, they discovered upon receipt thereof that certain items of furniture and personalty were missing. Thereupon, plaintiff-appellees filed suit against the defendant-appellant to recover for the lost articles. The cause proceeded to a non-jury trial at the conclusion of which the trial judge entered the herein appealed judgment for $3,300 plus costs in favor of the plaintiff-appellees.
Defendant-appellant Allstates Van Lines Corporation first contends that the trial court erred in entering judgment in favor of appellees when the only evidence presented was delivery by the appellees to Jones Miami Beach Express and not to the appellant.
After a close scrutiny of the record on appeal, we conclude that there was substantial competent evidence contained therein to support the finding of the trial judge that an agency relationship existed between the defendant-appellant and Jones Miami Beach Express and thereupon holding appellant liable for the loss sustained by the appellees. Thus, this point of appellant must fail.
Appellant secondly argues that there was insufficient testimony presented to the trial court to sustain the amount of damages awarded to the plaintiff-appellees. We find this point has merit.
An examination of the record reflects that the only evidence presented as to the value of the lost items was the testimony of the plaintiff-appellees as to the original purchase price therefor. We find this proof adduced at trial as to the value of the lost articles is inadequate and the measure of damages incorrect as the proper measure of damages for loss of personal property is its market value on the date of the loss. See McDonald Air Conditioning, Inc. v. John Brown, Inc., Fla.App.1973, 285 So. 2d 697 and Hillside Van Lines, Inc. v. Matalon, Fla.App. 1974, 297 So. 2d 848.
Accordingly, the judgment herein appealed is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial on the issue of damages.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allied van Lines, Inc. v. McKNAB, 331 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)…antial evidence which accords with logic and reason. In measuring plaintiff’s damages, the proper measure of damages for loss of personal property is its market value on the date of the loss. Allstates Van Lines Corp. v. Lebenstein, Fla.App.3d 1974, 303 So. 2d 33; Hillside Van Lines, Inc. v. Matalon, Fla.App.3d 1974, 297 So. 2d 848; and McDonald Air Conditioning, Inc. v. John Brown, Inc., Fla.App.4th 1973, 285 So. 2d 697. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new t…
-
Ryan v. Atl. Fertilizer & Chem. Co., 515 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…384 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); market value of the business completely destroyed or of property completely destroyed on date of destruction, Aetna Life & Casualty Co. v. Little, [*327] 384 So. 2d at 216; Allstates Van Lines Corp. v. Lebenstein, 303 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); or, if property is not totally destroyed, either cost of repair or difference in value before and after the damage, Airtech Service, Inc. v. MacDonald Constr. Co., 150 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). As to the damage issues, Ryan…
-
Levy v. Eliahu Ben-Shmuel, 255 So. 3d 493 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…n to give a party an 'extra bite of the apple' "). In support of his position that the proper remedy is a remand for a new trial on damages, Ben-Shmuel relies upon two earlier decisions of this court: [*497] Allstates Van Lines Corp. v. Lebenstein, 303 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) ; Hillside Van Lines, Inc. v. Matalon, 297 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). In each of these cases we determined that the plaintiff had failed to meet its burden of establishing the proper measure of damages, and reversed the final…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McDONALD AIR Conditioning, Inc. v. John Brown, Inc., 285 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Hillside van Lines, Inc. v. Matalon, 297 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)