Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co.

Citation474 So.2d 212,10 Fla. L. Weekly 353
Decision Date03 July 1985
Docket NumberNo. 65738,65738
Parties10 Fla. L. Weekly 353 ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Petitioners, v. MAY PLUMBING COMPANY, Northern Assurance Company, Commercial Union Insurance Company and Chicago Insurance Company, Respondents.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Thomas D. Lardin of Weaver, Lardin and Lardin, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioners.

Frank R. Gramling of Fertig & Gramling, Fort Lauderdale, for Chicago Ins. Co.

Robert M. Klein of Stephens, Lynn, Chernay & Klein, Miami, for May Plumbing Co., Northern Assur. Co. and Commercial Union Ins. Co.

EHRLICH, Justice.

This cause is before the Court because the decision of the district court of appeal in Chicago Insurance Co. v. Argonaut Insurance Co., 451 So.2d 876 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), directly and expressly conflicts with the decision of another district court of appeal. Bergen Brunswig Corporation v. State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 415 So.2d 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

Argonaut Insurance Company paid $249,360.51 to the owners of the Colony Club Apartments for damages from a fire caused by the negligence of a May Plumbing Company employee. Argonaut then filed a subrogation action against May and its insurers and was awarded a judgment of $187,020.38 after the apartment owners were found to have been 25% contributorily negligent in the fire. The trial court awarded prejudgment interest.

On appeal, the district court reversed the award of prejudgment interest, holding that the comparative negligence factor made the award of damages uncertain and, thus, unliquidated. The opinion of the Fourth District Court of Appeal is itself an indicia of the conflict and confusion in the treatment of prejudgment interest.

The opinion cites as persuasive precedent the First District's decision in McCoy v. Rudd, 367 So.2d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). In McCoy, plaintiffs were awarded $75,000 plus prejudgment interest as damages for losses resulting from a neighbor's negligently ignited grass fire. The appellate court disallowed the prejudgment interest because the damages were unliquidated. Both liability and the amount of the loss were disputed at trial. The court enunciated the rule, upon which the Fourth District relied in the instant case, that "[w]here the judgment is for damages, interest may not be added to the principal award unless there can be a conclusive determination of an exact amount due and a date from which interest can be computed." 367 So.2d at 1082, quoted at 451 So.2d at 877.

The First District, however, no longer embraced that rule. In Bergen Brunswig Corp., the court announced that "the better rule" was 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." 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 the stare decisis controlling effect of Supreme Court decisions from the past century, cases from which this Court has never receded.

In Jacksonville, Tampa & Key West Railway v. Peninsular Land Transportation & Manufacturing Co., 27 Fla. 1, 9 So. 661 (1891), a case dealing with negligent burning of plaintiff's property, this Court ruled:

The law as to what is the "measure of damage" in the abstract, in cases where the property of one has been destroyed, unintentionally, but by the negligence or carelessness of another, ... is well settled to be "just compensation in money for the property destroyed;" such an amount as will fully restore the loser to the same property status that he occupied before the destruction. To arrive at the amount of such compensation, inquiry ... is necessarily confined strictly to the ascertainment of the value of the properties destroyed, with such incidents of interest for the retention of such value from the person entitled thereto as may be sanctioned by law.

27 Fla. at 119-20; 9 So. at 679.

Six years later, in Sullivan v. McMillan, 37 Fla. 134, 19 So. 340 (1896), the Court further elaborated on that rule:

"There is no reason why a person injured should have a smaller measure of recovery in one case than the other.... On general principles, once admit that interest is the natural fruit of money, it would seem that, wherever a verdict liquidates a claim and fixes it as of a prior date, interest should follow from that date."

37 Fla. at 143; 19 So. 343, (quoting 1 Sedgewick Damages § 300 (8th ed.1891).

Thus, since at least before the turn of the century, Florida has adopted the position that prejudgment interest is merely another element of pecuniary damages. 1 While doing so, the Court recognized and rejected an alternative but traditional rationale--that prejudgment interest was to be awarded as a penalty 2 for defendant's "wrongful" act of disputing a claim found to be just and owing. This view is still the rule of some jurisdictions. See, e.g., Home Insurance Co. v. Olmstead, 355 So.2d 310 (Miss.1978). The distinction between liquidated and unliquidated claims is closely linked to this "penalty theory" of prejudgment interest. To punish a defendant for failure to pay a sum which was not yet certain or which he disputed would be manifest injustice. But where the amount is certain and the defendant refuses to surrender it because of defenses...

To continue reading

Request your trial
412 cases
  • Allapattah Services, Inc. v. Exxon Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • August 7, 2001
    ...A.2d 306, 311 (D.C.1987) (liquidated where claim is an easily ascertainable sum certain at time it arises); Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So.2d 212, 215 (Fla.1985) (claim is liquidated and entitled to prejudgment interest if claimant has obtained verdict for out-of-pocket pecun......
  • Allstate Ins. Co. v. Palterovich
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • August 26, 2009
    ...Air Prods. and Chems., Inc. v. Louisiana Land and Exploration Co., 867 F.2d 1376, 1380 (11th Cir.1989) (citing Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So.2d 212, 215 (Fla.1985)). "[N]either the merit of the defense nor the certainty of the loss affects the award of prejudgment interest."......
  • Khalid v. Citrix Sys.
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • December 7, 2020
    ...entitlement to prejudgment interest. In Florida, prejudgment interest is an element of pecuniary damages. Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212, 214 (Fla. 1985). Once a jury has reached its verdict, the plaintiff's damages are deemed liquidated and the plaintiff is legally e......
  • Khalid v. Citrix Systems, Inc.
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • December 7, 2020
    ...to prejudgment interest. In Florida, prejudgment interest is an element of pecuniary damages. Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So.2d 212, 214 (Fla. 1985). Once a jury has reached its verdict, the plaintiff's damages are deemed liquidated and the plaintiff is legally entitled to an......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • No postjudgment interest on prejudgment interest? A rebuttal.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 76 No. 7, July 2002
    • July 1, 2002
    ...which was expressly approved and adopted in Higley South. The Peavy court relied heavily on Argonaut Insurance Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1985), in holding that an award of interest on interest was In Argonaut ... our Supreme Court determined that prejudgment interest is ......
  • A Common-Law Remedy for the Eviction Epidemic.
    • United States
    • Missouri Law Review Vol. 86 No. 3, June 2021
    • June 22, 2021
    ...the "time value" of money (although it may not be the finder of fact who includes this element). Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So.2d 212, 215 (Fla. 1985) (holding that "it is a purely ministerial duty of the trial judge or clerk of the court to add the appropriate amount of int......
  • Prejudgment and postjudgment interest: what's in a name?
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 76 No. 3, March 2002
    • March 1, 2002
    ...verdict. (2) See., e.g., Brecker Holding Corp. v. Becker, 78 F. 3d 514, 516-17 (11th Cir. 1996);Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Mary Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1985). (3) See Kissimmee Util. Auth. v. Better Plastics, Inc., 526 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 1988). (4) See, e.g., Brecker, 78 F.3d at 516. (5) ......
  • "Here comes the money": a subcontractor's and material supplier's guide to perfecting construction lien and bond rights under Florida law.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 76 No. 9, October - October 2002
    • October 1, 2002
    ...713.22. (27) See FLA. STAT. [section] 713.22(1). (28) See FLA. STAT. [section] 713.29. (29) See Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212, 214 (Fla. 1985) (prejudgment interest is another element of pecuniary damages and once a verdict has liquidated damages as of a certain date......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT