From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pilkington v. Metro Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jul 13, 1990
562 So. 2d 709 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

Opinion

No. 89-1053.

April 10, 1990. Rehearing Denied July 13, 1990.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court of Dade County; Murray Goldman, Judge.

Morgan, Lewis Bockius, Miami, and Peter Buscemi and William L. Gardner and Thomas J. O'Brien, Washington, D.C., and David C. Goodwin and Nancy A. Copperthwaite, Miami, for appellants.

Bailey Hunt and Mercedes C. Busto, Miami, for appellee.

Before BASKIN, COPE and LEVY, JJ.


We affirm the trial court's order insofar as it holds that appellee is entitled to prejudgment interest. See Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So.2d 212 (Fla. 1985). However, the record does not adequately support the date chosen by the court for computation purposes. Here, the most recent damages claimed are for lost profits for four successive years. Since the jury verdict was for less than the full claim, appellant is correct in contending that interest should be predicated on the most recent periods covered by the damages claim. We therefore reverse and remand for a new hearing on the amount of prejudgment interest to be awarded.

Reversed and remanded.


Summaries of

Pilkington v. Metro Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Jul 13, 1990
562 So. 2d 709 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)
Case details for

Pilkington v. Metro Corp.

Case Details

Full title:PILKINGTON PLC AND CHANCE PILKINGTON LIMITED, APPELLANTS, v. METRO…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Jul 13, 1990

Citations

562 So. 2d 709 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

Citing Cases

Sostchin v. Doll Enter.

Although, as a result of our disposition of the main appeal it is unnecessary to address the issues raised on…

Sostchin v. Doll Enterprises, Inc.

Although, as a result of our disposition of the main appeal it is unnecessary to address the issues raised on…