Neumann v. Brigman, 84-509
| Decision Date | 02 August 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-509,84-509 |
| Citation | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1861,475 So.2d 1247 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1861 A.W. NEUMANN and Joe Crescenzi, Appellants, v. R.D. BRIGMAN, Jack Cherry, Jr., and Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, a corporation, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Joel D. Eaton of Podhurst, Orseck, Parks, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadow & Olin, P.A., and Beckham & McAliley, P.A., Miami, for appellants.
Judith W. Simmons and John Breckenridge, Jr., of Jacobs, Robbins, Gaynor, Burton, Hampp, Burns, Bronstein & Shasteen, P.A., Tampa, for appellees.
The only question we decide in this case is whether the amount in controversy claimed by appellants, plaintiffs below, meets the jurisdictional amount of the circuit court. We think that it does and therefore reverse the order of the trial court dismissing the complaint.
Appellants filed an action against their employer, Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company ("the Railroad"), and two employees of the Railroad (appellees). In an effort to encourage employees to be alert to and submit cost effective suggestions, the Railroad caused "The Employees Suggestion Plan Guide Book" and "Employees Suggestion Form" to be printed and distributed to its employees. The Employees Suggestion Plan Guide Book contained the following pertinent enticement provisions on potential monetary awards for any implemented cost-effective suggestions:
Tangible Awards--for suggestions with measurable monetary savings. The basis for determining tangible awards is:
15% of estimated savings accruing to the company in the first 12 months after full implementation of the idea.
....
Maximum award for Tangible Suggestions (15% of first year savings) is $1,000.... However, if a suggestion is adopted and is of exceptional value to your company and/or family lines, an award beyond the maximum referred to may be made.
....
Final decision as to the eligibility of a suggestion, a suggestor, the amount of award for adopted suggestions, or rejection of a suggestion, will be at the sole discretion of the General Suggestion Committee.
Procedure manuals on the authority and procedure for the Railroad's "General Suggestion Committee" to evaluate and make recommendations on all employee suggestions provided, insofar as pertinent here:
The General Suggestion Committee's responsibilities, authority, and accountability are as follows:
....
3. Exercise final discretion in arranging payment of awards--not to exceed $1,000 for adopted suggestions.
4. Refer to the President for final approval all suggestions involving monetary awards in excess of $1,000.
Award Computation.
....
The following guidelines for determining value are offered in order that all suggestions will be evaluated on an equal basis.
....
The maximum award for tangible suggestions adopted is $1,000.... [I]f an unusual suggestion is adopted and the value to the individual railroad ... is exceptional, the General Committee may refer this suggestion to the President with recommendation for an award in excess of the maximum shown, based on the value of the idea.
The Employees Suggestion Form contained a section entitled "General Rules and Regulations" which included the following:
7. Awards ranging from $25 to $1,000 (with exceptions for unusually valuable ideas) will be paid to eligible employees for suggestions adopted.
Appellants' amended complaint alleges that they submitted a written suggestion on September 12, 1977, which the committee initially rejected on January 13, 1978. The committee expressed interest in the suggestion and invited appellants to attempt to supply more details. On April 14, 1978, appellants submitted a detailed amended suggestion, which appellants allege the Railroad implemented on April 24, 1978, with "record" results of over $2,000,000 cost savings in the first year. The complaint further alleges entitlement to damages of $800,000 for breach of contract and also includes counts for unjust enrichment, misappropriation of property rights, quantum meruit, and fraud, the latter including a prayer for punitive damages.
Appellees moved to dismiss appellants' complaint on the grounds that the above provisions limited appellants to a maximum recovery of $1,000--which, if true, was less than the minimum required "amount in controversy" under sections 26.012(2)(a) 1 and 34.01(1)(c)1, FLORIDA STATUTES (1981)2. For our purposes on this appeal, the complaint alleges facts which, if proved, establish damages exceeding the jurisdictional threshold unless confined to the alleged $1,000 limitation. The trial court expressly ruled that under appellees' Employees Suggestion Plan "the maximum award for tangible suggestions is $1,000, (hence) the amount in controversy is limited to that amount and does not ... meet the threshold...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Giuffre v. Andrew
...2007).38 See Berkowitz v. Delaire Country Club, Inc. , 126 So. 3d 1215, 1219 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012) ; Neumann v. Brigman , 475 So. 2d 1247, 1249 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985) ; see also Talbott v. First Bank Fla., FSB , 59 So. 3d 243, 245 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011) ("When a contract is amb......
-
Land O'Sun Realty Ltd. v. REWJB Gas Investments
...3 See Myrick v. Saint Catherine Laboure Manor, Inc., 529 So.2d 369 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); DeLondono, 511 So.2d at 605; Neumann v. Brigman, 475 So.2d 1247 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Hoffman v. Terry, 397 So.2d 1184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Florida Shade Tobacco Growers, Inc. v. Jno. H. Swisher & Son, Inc.......
-
Hooters of America, Inc. v. Carolina Wings, Inc.
...that the Agreement is sufficiently ambiguous as to render the issue a question of fact rather than a question of law. Neumann v. Brigman, 475 So.2d 1247 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). We do find merit however, in Hooters' third ground, as it relates to Count I, that damages may not be awarded which ar......
-
Grunewald v. Warren
...attached to its complaint documentation indicating that student owed less than the $5,000 jurisdictional amount); Neumann v. Brigman, 475 So.2d 1247 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Whitley v. Phil-Nick's Inc., 451 So.2d 925 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). If it clearly appeared of record that the value of the inv......