TECH CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
THE PERMUTIT COMPANY, A DIVISION OF SYBRON CORPORATION, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, AND PETERSEN CONSTRUCTION CO., A/K/A PEABODY WATER RESOURCES, INC., APPELLEES; PEABODY PETERSEN CO., F/K/A PETERSEN CONSTRUCTION CO., A/K/A PEABODY WATER RESOURCES, INC., APPELLANT, V. THE PERMUTIT COMPANY, A DIVISION OF SYBRON CORPORATION, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, AND TECH CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
The Permutit Company sued Peabody Petersen Company for breach of contract, with Tech Corporation added as a third-party defendant. The trial court awarded damages of $31,973.38 including lost profits and overhead. On appeal, the court affirmed liability but reversed the damages award due to insufficient proof of lost profits and overhead allocation.
The court affirmed the trial court's finding of liability but reversed the damages award because the evidence supporting the lost profit and overhead allocation was too vague and confusing to be reasonably certain. The court affirmed the allowance of interest from the date damages became due, as this is proper in contract actions when a verdict liquidates a claim and fixes it as of a prior date.
[1] Lost profits, including reasonable overhead, are recoverable under § 672.708(2), F.S.1973, when a contract is breached.
[2] Proof of lost profits and the allocation of overhead to a specific job must be reasonably certain to support a damages award.
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“The proof concerning the amount of lost profits need only be reasonably certain to permit recovery thereof.”
Establishes the legal standard for proving lost profits in contract damages
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePermutit Company entered into a contract with Peabody Petersen Company. When Peabody breached, Permutit sued for damages. Peabody filed a third-party …
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 Legal Rate Of Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
Appellee, The Permutit Company, sued appellant Peabody Petersen Company for breach of contract, and Peabody filed a third party claim against appellant Tech Corporation. The trial court entered a judgment for appellee and against both Peabody and Tech, jointly and severally, for the sum of $31,973.38, together with interest. The judgment included $17,020 lost profit, $2,164.60 for materials, $2,766.72 for labor, and $10,022.06 for reasonable overhead. Both appellants attack that judgment in these consolidated appeals. In addition, Tech attacks the third party judgment holding it liable to idemnify Peabody.
We have considered all of appellants’ contentions and find only two of them warranting discussion. The first is appellants’ joint assertion that the trial court erred in its assessment of damages, particularly with reference to the inclusion of overhead.
There is no dispute among the parties that if appellee is entitled to recover damages in this case, § 672.708(2), F.S.1973, is applicable and appellee is entitled to recover its lost profit, including reasonable overhead. The problem in this case is trying to determine whether the final judgment included more than one award for overhead.
The proof of lost profits and the allocation of overhead to a specific job is at best difficult. The proof concerning the amount of lost profits need only be reasonably certain to permit recovery thereof. Stuart Kitchens, Inc., v. Stevens, 248 Md. 71, 234 A. 2d 749 (1967). However, our careful study of the record reveals that the evidence in support of the claim for lost profit (including reasonable overhead) is so vague and confusing as to be inadequate to support the trial judge’s finding. Thus, we believe a new trial on the question of damages is indicated because the proof as to appellee’s loss of profit (including reasonable overhead) was not reasonably certain.
The other question which we feel called upon to treat is the allowance of interest on any damages awarded.
The trial court found appellee was entitled to interest upon the damages award “from September 10, 1969, the date upon which this Court finds Permutit would have been entitled to all of its funds from Buyers had the contract in fact been performed.” Since the court found that damages were due as of a date certain, we believe the allowance of interest from that date is supported by English And American Ins. Co. v. Swain Groves, Fla.App. 1969, 218 So. 2d 453, and United Bonding Insurance Company v. Crum, Fla.App.1970, 239 So. 2d 600. In the Swain Groves case this court stated:
“In actions ex contractu it is proper to allow interest at the legal rate from the date the debt was due. The fact that there is an honest and bona fide dispute as to whether the debt is actually due has no bearing on the question. If it is finally determined that the debt was due, the person to whom it was due is entitled not only to the payment of the principal of the debt but also to the interest at the lawful rate from the due date thereof. Parker v. Brinson Construction Company, Fla.1955, 78 So. 2d 873. Whenever a verdict liquidates a claim and fixes it as of a prior date, interest should follow from that date. Everglade Cypress Company v. Tunnicliffe, 1933, 107 Fla. 675, 148 So. 192.”
The judgment appealed from is affirmed insofar as the questions of liability are concerned and reversed insofar as the award of damages is concerned.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial on the issue of damages.
CROSS and OWEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Argonaut Ins. Co. v. MAY Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1985)…eptible of prejudgment interest when a verdict has the effect of fixing damages as of a prior date.” 415 So. 2d at 767. The First District cited as persuasive authority for the better rule a case from the Fourth District, Tech Corp. v. Permutit Co., 321 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). We approve the position adopted in Bergen Brunswig Corp. and so quash the decision of the district court below. In agreeing with the First District’s evaluation of “the better rule,” we do not make new law. Rather, we reassert…
-
Bergen Brunswig Corp. & Health Application Sys., Inc. v. State of Fla. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 415 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…47 (M.D.Tenn.1963). Indeed, this court has recited such, in dicta, as the applicable rule. See McCoy v. Rudd, 367 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). However, we now determine that the better view is expressed in the case of Tech Corp. v. Permutit Co., 321 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), where the court held that, for the purpose of assessing prejudgment interest, a claim becomes liquidated and susceptible of prejudgment interest when a verdict has the effect of fixing damages as of a prior date. Such a rule eli…
-
Diversified Commercial Developers, Inc. v. Formrite, Inc., 450 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…te from the date the debt was due... The fact that there is an honest and bona-fide dispute as to whether the debt is actually due has no bearing on the question.” The same result " was reached by this Court in Tech Corporation v. Permutit Company, 321 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 4th D.C.A.1975) and English and American Insurance Company v. Swain Groves Inc., 218 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). In the Swain case, it was stated: “In actions ex contractu it is proper to allow interest at the legal rate from the date the…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Parker v. Brinson Constr. Co. & Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 78 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 1955)
- English & Am. Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Swain Groves, Inc., 218 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Everglade Cypress Co. v. Tunnicliffe, 107 Fla. 675 (Fla. 1933)
- United Bonding Ins. Co. v. Kenyon C. Crum and S. Norman Rosendale, 239 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)