Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, 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 Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

October 21, 2016 by admin

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 — Homeowners — Attorney’s fees — Trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees and costs in favor of insureds where filing of lawsuit was not a necessary catalyst to resolve dispute — Where insurer admitted coverage for damage to interior of home, but denied coverage for damage to roof, the dispute over cause of loss to roof was an amount of loss issue for appraisers, not a coverage issue for court — Where insurer demanded appraisal prior to filing of lawsuit by insured, and indicated that it would repair any damage awarded in appraisal, the filing of lawsuit was not a necessary catalyst to resolve dispute over roof damage
  • Insurance — Commercial liability — Exclusions — Assault and battery — Insurer had no duty to defend insured in action alleging injury arising out of assault and battery on insured’s premises where policy contained endorsement excluding coverage for injury arising out of or resulting from assault or battery
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Appraisal — Assignees — No error in finding that appraisal provision of insured’s homeowner’s policy applied to insured’s assignee and granting insurer’s motion to compel appraisal — Policy did not classify appraisal as a duty of the insured — Assignee received an assignment that entitled it to receipt of payment from insurer, and concomitant with that right was its duty to comply with the conditions of the contract that afforded it payment
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Water damage — Post-loss obligations — Sworn proof of loss — Trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of insurer after finding that insureds had forfeited their policy coverage for failure to provide a sworn proof of loss — Policy did not eliminate duty of insured to provide sworn proof of loss where insurer opted to repair — However, because insureds complied to some extent with policy requirements, and policy required insurer to prove it was prejudiced by insureds’ failure to provide sworn proof of loss, material issues of fact remain
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Watercraft exclusion — No error in determining that watercraft exclusion in the insureds’ homeowners’ insurance policy precluded coverage for injuries sustained by a third party in a boating accident that occurred when the insured son, who had permission to use the boat from the insured father, allowed another third party to pilot the boat while intoxicated — The only applicable exception to the watercraft exclusion unambiguously states that the watercraft exclusion does not apply if the outboard engine or motor is not owned by an insured, and the boat and engine in this case were owned by the insured father — Severability clause, which provides that the policy “applies separately to each insured,” did not render watercraft exclusion ambiguous — Exceptions to the watercraft exclusion are not dependent on the insured who seeks coverage, but on the nature of the watercraft at issue

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 © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982