Kissimmee Utility Authority v. Better Plastics, Inc.
| Decision Date | 26 May 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 71073,71073 |
| Citation | 526 So.2d 46,13 Fla. L. Weekly 339 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 339 KISSIMMEE UTILITY AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. BETTER PLASTICS, INC., Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Edward Brinson of Brinson, Smith & Smith, P.A., Kissimmee, for petitioner.
Jeffry R. Jontz and Steven L. Brannock of Holland & Knight, Tampa, for respondents.
William S. Bilenky, Gen. Counsel and Mary Jane Lord, Associate Gen. Counsel, Florida Public Service Com'n, Tallahassee, for intervenor.
Pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution, we review Better Plastics, Inc. v. Kissimmee Utility Authority, 511 So.2d 402 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), to answer the following question certified as one of great public importance:
IS A REGULATED PUBLIC UTILITY IN FLORIDA LIABLE TO CUSTOMERS FOR PREJUDGMENT INTEREST ON OVERCHARGE REFUNDS?
On the authority of Argonaut Insurance Company v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So.2d 212 (Fla.1985), we answer the question in the affirmative and approve the decision of the district court.
Kissimmee Utility Authority (Authority), a municipal utility, provides electrical service to Better Plastics, Inc. (Better Plastics). For the period of 1972 through 1985, the Authority overcharged Better Plastics in the amount of $107,674.17 for electrical service by using a multiplier of 80 when it should have been 60. On February 27, 1986, the Authority acknowledged the overcharge and issued a check for the overcharge amount to Better Plastics. On March 5, 1986, Better Plastics filed suit against the Authority, alleging the Authority was liable for interest on the overcharge amount. The Authority denied it owed any interest on the overcharge refund, asserting that as a regulated public utility it is governed by Florida Administrative Code Rule 25-6.106(2), 1 which does not permit or authorize the payment of interest to a customer as a result of overbilling for energy. 2
Both parties moved for summary judgment, asserting that there were no disputed issues of material fact. On October 20, 1986, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Authority. Better Plastics appealed, and the Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, finding that a regulated public utility has the legal obligation to pay prejudgment interest on overcharge refunds under section 687.01, Florida Statutes (1986), and Argonaut Insurance Company v. May Plumbing Co.
Even though rule 25-6.106(2) does not specifically authorize the payment of prejudgment interest as part of the overcharge refund due a customer, we agree with the district court that a regulated public utility has the legal obligation to pay interest on overcharge refunds. In light of our decision in Argonaut, it is unnecessary for the Public Service Commission to specifically refer to prejudgment interest in its rules to assure utility customers are fully compensated in the event of an overbilling. 3
In Argonaut we reaffirmed the long-standing principle in Florida that prejudgment interest is merely another element of pecuniary damages. For a plaintiff to be fully compensated, the award must include damages suffered from the loss of the use of the money because "the loss itself is a wrongful deprivation by the defendant of the plaintiff's property." 474 So.2d at 215. Once liability has been determined and the amount of damages set, it is merely a ministerial duty to add the appropriate amount of interest to the principal amount of damages awarded. Id. Whether an award of prejudgment interest is appropriate in this case does not turn on the Authority's status as a regulated public utility. In Florida once damages are liquidated, prejudgment interest is considered an element of those damages as a matter of law, and the plaintiff is to be made whole from the date of the loss. Id.
Notwithstanding the rule that a plaintiff be fully compensated from the date of the loss, the Authority argues that if Florida law requires payment of prejudgment interest on overcharge refunds, then a portion of Better Plastics' claim and the interest thereon is barred by the statute of limitations, section 95.11, Florida Statutes (1986). The Authority admits in its initial brief on the merits that it was aware of the time bar argument it now asserts; however, the Authority claims this defense was not raised because the Authority chose to defend the action on the ground that rule 25-6.106 was a clear and lawful limitation on its duty to pay prejudgment interest on overcharge refunds. We decline to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kirsch v. Brightstar Corp., 12 C 6966
...whole from the date of the loss.” Broward Cnty. v. Finlayson, 555 So.2d 1211, 1213 (Fla.1990) (quoting Kissimmee Utility Auth. v. Better Plastics, Inc., 526 So.2d 46, 47 (Fla.1988) ). This general rule, however, “is not absolute and may depend on equitable considerations.” Id. “The weight o......
-
Major League Baseball v. Morsani
...right, or conduct which implies the voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right. See, e.g., Kissimmee Util. Auth. v. Better Plastics, Inc., 526 So.2d 46, 48 (Fla.1988) ("The Authority waived the statute of limitations defense by electing not to plead it even though the Authori......
-
Morsani v. Major League Baseball
...to the statute of limitations, like equitable estoppel, has long been recognized in Florida. See, e.g., Kissimmee Util. Auth. v. Better Plastics, Inc., 526 So.2d 46 (Fla.1988); Aboandandolo v. Vonella, 88 So.2d 282 (Fla.1956); Akin v. City of Miami, 65 So.2d 54 We must acknowledge that a st......
-
Broward County v. Finlayson
...so, whether the amount should date back to when the wages accrued or to when the first claim was made. In Kissimmee Utility Authority v. Better Plastics, Inc., 526 So.2d 46 (Fla.1988), we reaffirmed our decision in Argonaut Insurance Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So.2d 212 (Fla.1985), and st......
-
Legal theories & defenses
...2003). 4. Statute of Limitations: The statute of limitations can be waived. See, e.g., Kissimmee Util. Auth. v. Better Plastics, Inc. , 526 So.2d 46, 48 (Fla. 1988) (“The Authority waived the statute of limitations defense by electing not to plead it even though the Authority claims to have......
-
Prejudgment and postjudgment interest: what's in a name?
...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. (4) See, e.g., Brecker, 78 F.3d at 516. (5) See id. (6) See, e.g., Cioffe v. Morris, 676 F.2d 539 (11th Cir. 1982); Burkhart v. Kroeger ......