Northamerican Van Lines, Inc. v. Roper, AM-398
| Decision Date | 31 March 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. AM-398,AM-398 |
| Citation | 429 So.2d 750 |
| Parties | NORTHAMERICAN VAN LINES, INC., a foreign corporation, Appellant, v. Robbie B. ROPER and Tawnia Gaskins, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jeffrey D. Dunn, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Robert C. Gobelman and Jack W. Shaw, Jr., of Mathews, Osborne, McNatt, Gobelman & Cobb, Jacksonville, for appellees.
We have for review a judgment awarding appellees Roper and Gaskins compensatory damages totalling $20,000. This litigation stems from a contract entered into by Roper and Northamerican Van Lines (Northamerican) in which Northamerican agreed to transport Roper's personal effects and belongings from New Jersey to Jacksonville, Florida. At the time of the planned move, Roper was in the process of divorcing her husband. As a condition of the contract, Northamerican agreed to remove Roper's belongings from the family residence while her husband was at work. Thereafter, as contracted, Northamerican removed Roper's belongings from the New Jersey residence and transported them to Jacksonville. When Roper and her daughter, Gaskins, arrived in Jacksonville, however, Roper was advised by Northamerican that their belongings would not be delivered as contracted, but would instead be stored at a transfer company. At that point, Roper contacted an attorney who made arrangements with the transfer company for the release of some of Roper's and Gaskins' clothing and personal effects. Among the items which were not released were Roper's furniture, including a washer and dryer, as well as the balance of her and her daughter's clothing. When Northamerican and the transfer company still refused to release the balance of her and her daughter's belongings one month after the shipment arrived in Jacksonville, Roper filed a replevin action against the transfer company. As a result of Roper's successful replevin action, Northamerican delivered the balance of the belongings on January 23, 1978, some four months after the contracted date of delivery. Thereafter, appellees filed a four count complaint alleging that Northamerican was liable to them for compensatory and punitive damages based on theories of contract, negligence, intentional tort and conspiracy. At trial, Roper testified that she could not afford to pay the $350.00 a month it would have cost to furnish her apartment with rental furniture. Roper also presented documented receipts which indicated that she had incurred $239.28 in actual out-of-pocket expenses during the period she was deprived of her property. Additionally, although not documented by receipts, Roper testified that she incurred other expenses such as $100.00 in transportation costs and $5.00 per week in laundry expenses during the four months she was without her washer and dryer. Roper further testified that she spent an unspecified amount of money eating out because she was unable to cook dinner at her apartment. Gaskins, the daughter, did not present any evidence to indicate that she had incurred any out-of-pocket expenses other than the expenses which were paid for by her mother. The only other evidence presented on the issue of damages consisted of testimony from both Gaskins and Roper indicating that they had suffered embarrassment, humiliation, and emotional distress due to the fact that they were forced to live in an unfurnished apartment, which they were ashamed to invite any friends to visit. The trial court specifically prohibited Roper and Gaskins from attempting to recover the attorney's fees incurred during the replevin action as an element of compensatory damages in the instant case. Although...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Hooks, AUTO-OWNERS
...an improper basis. As to the propriety of any award to Var Heyl, we believe recovery is here sanctioned by North American Van Lines, Inc. v. Roper, 429 So.2d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), which held that where the wrongful act of the defendant has involved the claimant in litigation with others,......
-
Winselmann v. Reynolds
...So.2d 167 (Fla.1988); Pony Exp. Courier Corp. of Fla. v. Zimmer, 475 So.2d 1316, 1318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Northamerican Van Lines, Inc. v. Roper, 429 So.2d 750, 752 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Canadian Universal Ins. Co. v. Employers Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 325 So.2d 29, 31 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. de......
-
Blue Heron Beach Resort Developer, LLC v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.
...State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Pritcher, 546 So. 2d 1060, 1061 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App. 1989); Northamerican Van Lines, Inc. v. Roper, 429 So. 2d 750, 752 (Fla. 1st Dist. Ct. App. 1983)). ...
-
Reiterer v. Monteil
...recovered as an element of damages.” Robbins v. McGrath, 955 So.2d 633, 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (quoting Northamerican Van Lines, Inc. v. Roper, 429 So.2d 750, 752 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)); see also De Pantosa Saenz v. Rigau & Rigau, P.A., 549 So.2d 682, 686 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (stating real pro......
-
Chapter 16-6 Wrongful Act Doctrine
...2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Hooks, 463 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Northamerican Van Lines, Inc. v. Roper, 429 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); but see State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. Pritcher, 546 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).[131] Robbins v. McGrath, 955 ......
-
Chapter 17-6 Wrongful Act Doctrine
...2d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Hooks, 463 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Northamerican Van Lines, Inc. v. Roper, 429 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); but see State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. Pritcher, 546 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).[131] Robbins v. McGrath, 955 ......