Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Are Available to Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Blog
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Elisabeth K. Eubanks
  • Links
  • Contact Us

October 21, 2016 by Tom

Attorney’s fees — Interest — Prejudgment interest on attorney’s fees should have been assessed from date of order confirming arbitration award which determined party’s entitlement to fees, not date of arbitration award

41
Fla. L. Weekly D2341c
Top of Form

Attorney’s
fees — Interest — Prejudgment interest on attorney’s fees should have been
assessed from date of order confirming arbitration award which determined
party’s entitlement to fees, not date of arbitration award — Amount of
prejudgment interest should have been calculated on amount of award and
included in judgment to bear post-judgment interest on the full amount

HDE,
INC., Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. BEE-LINE SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., ET AL.,
Appellees/Cross-Appellants. 5th District. Case No. 5D15-2805. Opinion filed
October 10, 2016. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County, Michael J.
Rudisill, Judge. Counsel: Atheseus R. Lockhart and Nicole C. Jackson, of Meier,
Bonner, Muszynski, O’Dell & Harvey, P.A., Longwood, for
Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Jim McCrae and J. Keith Ramsey, of Holland &
Knight LLP, Orlando, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Bee-Line Supply Company,
Inc. No Appearance for other Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

(PER
CURIAM.) We affirm the trial court’s order awarding attorney’s fees to Bee-Line
Supply Company, Inc. However, as Bee-Line concedes, the prejudgment interest
awarded on the amount of the attorney’s fees should have been assessed from the
date of the order confirming the arbitration award, June 18, 2013, which
determined Bee-Line’s entitlement to fees, not March 9, 2011, the date of the
arbitration award; and the amount of prejudgment interest should have been
calculated on the amount of the award and included in the judgment to bear
post-judgment interest on the full amount. See Quality Engineered
Installation, Inc. v. Higley South, Inc.,
670 So. 2d 929, 930-31 (Fla.
1996); Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Wood, 676 So. 2d 464, 466 (Fla. 5th
DCA 1996). Accordingly, we remand only for the proper calculation of the
prejudgment interest.1

AFFIRMED
in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with instructions. (ORFINGER and
BERGER, JJ., and CRAGGS, A. M., Associate Judge, concur.)

__________________

1Appellee
filed a notice of cross-appeal on August 25, 2015; however, the cross-appeal is
deemed abandoned since Bee-Line did not file a cross-appeal initial brief.

* *
*

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Insurance — Automobile — Insurer who filed a claim under her automobile insurance policy after her vehicle was damaged in an accident sued insurer claiming breach of policy after insured declared the vehicle a total loss and paid her what it deemed the actual cash value of vehicle — Breach of contract — Insurer was entitled to summary judgment on claim that insurer breached the policy by using an illegal methodology to calculate actual cash value — District court did not err in ruling insurer’s methodology for calculating actual cash value complied with Florida law — As matter of first impression, Section 626.9743(5), Florida Statutes, which provides that, in calculating “actual cash value” of insured’s vehicle based on actual cost to purchase comparable motor vehicle “derived from … two or more comparable motor vehicles available [in local market area] within the preceding 90 days,” did not require that “actual cash value” equal actual cost to purchase comparable vehicle — Insurer’s use of the Uniform Condition Adjustment, advertised prices of comparable motor vehicles, and the Certified Collateral Corporation ONE Market Valuation system to calculate the actual cash value of insured’s vehicle complied with Florida statute — Statute did not require that insurer use “retail cost as determined from generally recognized motor vehicle industry source” if it utilized one of other two statutory alternative methods for determining cost to purchase comparable motor vehicle — Insurer was entitled to summary judgment on claim that it breached the policy by failing to pay, as part of vehicle’s actual cash value, dealer fees incurred in purchasing replacement vehicle — Insurer was not required to pay insured’s out-of-pocket dealer fees — Under Florida and Eleventh Circuit law, “actual cash value” in an insurance policy means replacement cost less depreciation, and replacement cost includes dealer fees if the policyholder is reasonably likely to need to incur dealer fees — Insured failed to satisfy the standard for inclusion of dealer fees in replacement cost where insured showed a reasonable likelihood that she would incur dealer fees if she chose to purchase her replacement vehicle from a dealer and that a policyholder is reasonably likely to purchase a replacement vehicle from a dealer, but failed to show that a policyholder is reasonably likely to need to purchase a replacement vehicle from a dealer
  • Torts — Punitive damages — Amendment of complaint — Action alleging that vibration from defendant’s installation of sheet piles during construction on its parcel caused damage to plaintiff’s building — Trial court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion to amend its complaint to assert a claim for punitive damages based on allegation of gross negligence where plaintiff did not make required evidentiary showing to support such a claim — Report produced by third-party contractor warning defendant against the use of large vibratory compaction equipment in construction project, when read together with contractor’s deposition testimony, offered no evidentiary support for plaintiff’s claim that contractor warned defendant against using vibratory equipment in installation of sheet piles — Plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit, which drew illogical conclusions from contractor’s report, offered no support for gross negligence claim
  • Torts — Premises liability — Malls — Dangerous condition — Landscaping features — Vicarious liability — Action against operator of mall arising from injuries plaintiff suffered after stepping into a hole or depression in a raised landscape area which separated mall’s parking lot from the sidewalk that led to mall’s entrance — No error in entering summary judgment in favor of defendant because, as a matter of law, the landscaped area was not a dangerous condition — Evidence that a few people had walked across the landscaped area to get to the sidewalk was not sufficient to create a duty where there was no evidence that the grass bed had become a well-trampled footpath or that the grass bed has been in continuous and obvious use as a pedestrian shortcut such that defendant was put on constructive notice of the condition — Defendant cannot be held vicariously liable for condition created by landscapers where landscapers were not found liable
  • Torts — Automobile accident — Permanent injury — Causation — Trial court improperly directed verdict on causation given conflicting evidence which would have permitted reasonable jury to conclude that plaintiff had a pre-existing back injury caused by weight training or prior participation in competitive crew rowing
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Coverage — Vandalism — Trial court erred by denying insurer’s motion for directed verdict where policy limited coverage to insured’s “residence premises,” and insured did not “reside” at the property at the time of loss — Fact that insured was no longer leasing the property and was intending to move back when property was vandalized does not alter analysis

Blog Archives

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2023 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982