Bergen Brunswig Corp. v. STATE, ETC., 415 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
Bergen Brunswig Corp. v. STATE, ETC., 415 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“a claim becomes liquidated and susceptible of prejudgment interest when a verdict has the effect of fixing damages as of a prior date”
61 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Dade County v. American Re-Ins. Co. (fladistctapp, 1985-04-09) · Strongest negative: Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Carre (fladistctapp, 1983-07-01)
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Carre
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1983 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Bergen Brunswig Corp. v. Florida Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 415 So.2d 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), which espouses a test which defines liquidated damages as those fixed by a verdict as of a prior date.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Dade County v. American Re-Ins. Co.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1985 · signal: cf. · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
a claim becomes liquidated and susceptible of prejudgment interest when a verdict has the effect of fixing damages as of a prior date
cited Cited as authority (rule) John W. Schmitz v. Dorothy Joan Schmitz
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
Servs., 415 So. 2d 765, 767 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Citizens Property Insurance Corporation v. Amat
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So.2d 212, 214 (Fla.1985) (quoting Bergen Brunswig Corp. v. State, Dep’t of Health & Rehab, Servs., 415 So.2d 765, 767 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gencor Industries, Inc. v. FIREMAN'S FUND INS.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
Servs., 415 So.2d 765, 767 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) SEB S.A. v. Sunbeam Corporation
11th Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
In the competing line of authority, represented by Bergen Brunswig Corp. v. State Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs., Florida appellate courts awarded prejudgment interest in cases where the “verdict ha[d] the effect of fixing damages as of a prior date.” 415 So.2d 765, 767 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1982); accord Tech Corp. v. Permutit Co., 321 So.2d 562, 563-64 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1975).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Maytronics, Ltd. v. Aqua Vac Systems, Inc.
11th Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
In Argonaut the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the rule that “a claim becomes liquidated and susceptible of prejudgment interest when a verdict has the effect of fixing damages as of a prior date.” 474 So.2d at 214 (quoting Bergen Brunswig Corp. v. State Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 415 So.2d 765, 767 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1982)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McGurn v. Scott
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
In Argonaut Insurance Co. v. May, 474 So.2d 212 (Fla.1985), the supreme court approved this court’s decision in Bergen Brunswig Corp. v. State, 415 So.2d 765, 767 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), where it was stated 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.” (Emphasis added).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Truck & Trailer Sales Corp. v. Carolina Freight Carriers Corp.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1986 · confidence medium
The issue raised on cross appeal, whether it was error to deny appellee prejudgment interest, is controlled by Argonaut Insurance Company v. May Plumbing, 474 So.2d 212, 215 (Fla.1985), holding that prejudgment interest is merely another element of pecuniary damages, the computation of which is purely a ministerial duty of the trial court or clerk of the court requiring no findings of fact once a verdict has liquidated damages as of a date certain, and by Bergen Brunswig Corporation v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 415 So.2d 765, 767 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), holding that “for…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hurley v. Slingerland
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1986 · confidence medium
Although the general rule is that prejudgment interest may be awarded where damages are liquidated and may not be awarded where they are unliquidated, it *107 has been recognized that "in Florida the distinction between liquidated and unliquidated damages `has been substantially blurred.'" Bergen Brunswig Corp. v. State of Fla. Dep't of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 415 So.2d 765, 767 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)(citation omitted), rev. denied, 426 So.2d 25 (Fla. 1983).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Getelman v. Levey
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1985 · confidence medium
Mr. Levey’s entitlement to prejudgment interest depends upon whether his claim has become liquidated. “[A] claim becomes liquidated and susceptible of prejudgment interest when a verdict has the effect of fixing damages as of a prior date.” Argonaut Insurance Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So.2d 212, 214 (Fla.1985) (quoting with approval Bergen Brunswig Corp. v. Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 415 So.2d 765, 767 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), pet. for rev. denied, 426 So.2d 25 (Fla.1983)). “[T]he fact that there is an honest dispute whether there is an actual debt and, if…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Getelman v. Levey
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1985 · confidence medium
Mr. Levey's entitlement to prejudgment interest depends upon whether his claim has become liquidated. "[A] claim becomes liquidated and susceptible of prejudgment interest when a verdict has the effect of fixing damages as of a prior date." Argonaut Insurance Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So.2d 212, 214 (Fla. 1985) (quoting with approval Bergen Brunswig Corp. v. Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 415 So.2d 765, 767 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), pet. for rev. denied, 426 So.2d 25 (Fla. 1983)). "[T]he fact that there is an honest dispute whether there is an actual debt and, if so, t…
cited Cited "see" Small Business Administration v. Echevarria
S.D. Fla. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bergen Brunswig Corp. v. State Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 415 So.2d 765 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1982).
cited Cited "see" Pine Ridge at Haverhill v. Hovnanian
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bergen Brunswig Corp. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Serv., 415 So.2d 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), approved in Argonaut Ins.
discussed Cited "see" Tallahassee Medical Center v. Poole
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bergen Brunswig Corporation v. State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 415 So.2d 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Warren v. Old Dominion Insurance Company, 465 So.2d 1376 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Tech Corp. v. Permutit Co. 321 So.2d 562 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
discussed Cited "see" Interbel Trading, Inc. v. Editorial Caracas, C.A.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Argonaut Insurance Company v. May Plumbing Company, 474 So.2d 212 (Fla.1985), approving Bergen Brunswig Corporation v. State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 415 So.2d 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (misappropriation and misuse of funds provided pursuant to a contractual arrangement); Trend Coin Company v. Honeywell, Inc., 487 So.2d 1029 (Fla.1986) (intentional misrepresentation as to a burglar alarm system, negligent design, negligent installation and service, and breach of contract); Getelman v. Levey, 481 So.2d 1236 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (fraud and breach of fiduciary duty).
cited Cited "see" Cogenic Energy Systems, Inc. v. Ring Power Corp.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bergen Brunswig Corp. v. State Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 415 So.2d 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), petition for review denied, 426 So.2d 25 (Fla.1983).
cited Cited "see" Clark and Co., Inc. v. Dept. of Ins.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bergen Brunswig Corp. v. State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 415 So.2d 765, 766 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
discussed Cited "see" DeBolt v. Dept. of Health & Rehab. Services (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bergen Brunswig Corporation v. State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 415 So.2d 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). [9] The lack of a clear legislative intent is certainly not evident from a reading of section 768.28, which exposes the state and its subdivisions to tort claims "in cases where a private person would be liable." See Jetton v. Jacksonville Electric Authority, 399 So.2d 396, 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). [10] *225 The "evil" to be corrected by section 768.28's sweeping changes was unquestionably the prior system of absolute sovereign immunity which denied, to anyone having t…
cited Cited "see" Stinson v. Feminist Women's Health Center, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bergen Brunswig Corporation, et al. v. Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 415 So.2d 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
BERGEN BRUNSWIG CORPORATION and Health Application Systems, Inc., Appellants,
v.
STATE of Florida DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Appellee.
AB-412, XX-386.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
May 21, 1982.
415 So. 2d 765
Wentworth.
Cited by 49 opinions  |  Published

[*766] F. Perry Odom, C. Everett Boyd, and Mary Lee Sweet, of Ervin, Varn, Jacobs, Odom & Kitchen, Tallahassee, for appellants.

M. Stephen Turner, of Culpepper, Beatty & Turner, Tallahassee, for appellee.

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Appellants seek review of an order by which they were adjudged liable for the misappropriation and misuse of funds derived pursuant to a contractual arrangement involving various entities including appellants and appellee; appellee cross-appeals. We conclude that the lower court's denial of prejudgment interest was error, and we otherwise affirm the order appealed.

Appellee is a body corporate and statutorily possessed of the power "to sue and be sued in actions ex contractu but not in torts... ." § 402.34, Florida Statutes. Appellants argue, among various other contentions, that this statutory limitation deprives the circuit court of subject matter jurisdiction as to tort actions brought by appellee; appellants further argue that the present case is primarily a tort action. However, the circuit court is generally possessed of subject matter jurisdiction in tort actions, and, contrary to appellants' contention, § 402.34 does not alter that jurisdiction, but rather delimits appellee's capacity to sue by describing those instances in which the established jurisdiction of the court may be invoked. Cf., State ex rel. Jacksonville Gas Co. v. Lewis, 125 Fla. 816, 170 So. 306 (1936). Since appellants declined to raise a "lack of capacity" argument before the circuit court, this argument may not now be pursued on appeal. Cf., Cowart v. City of West Palm Beach, 255 So.2d 673 (Fla. 1971).

Appellants also argue that the circumstances of the present case do not support[*767] appellee's claim of conversion.[1] Appellee established the misappropriation and misuse of funds which were provided for a specific purpose with an express direction that the funds be used for no other purpose. The wrongful use of such funds, contrary to appellee's express instruction, constitutes conversion. See All Cargo Transport Inc. v. Florida East Coast Railway Co., 355 So.2d 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).

On cross-appeal appellee contends that the lower court erred in denying the claim for prejudgment interest. Such interest may be awarded in conversion and ex contractu actions. See Gillette v. Stapleton, 336 So.2d 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), and Srybnik v. Ice Tower, Inc., 183 So.2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). Although it has sometimes been indicated that prejudgment interest is appropriate only where damages are liquidated, in Florida the distinction between liquidated and unliquidated damages "has been substantially blurred." See Town of Longboat Key v. Carl E. Widell & Son, 362 So.2d 719 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Accordingly, in Florida there has evolved a principle that prejudgment interest may be awarded when damages are a fixed sum or an amount readily ascertainable by simple calculation and not dependent on the resolution of conflicting evidence, inferences, and interpretations. See Alarm Systems of Florida, Inc. v. Singer, 380 So.2d 1162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Town of Longboat Key v. Carl E. Widell & Son, supra; also see Tampa Electric Co. v. Nashville Coal Co., 214 F. Supp. 647 (M.D.Tenn. 1963). Indeed, this court has recited such, in dicta, as the applicable rule. See McCoy v. Rudd, 367 So.2d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). However, we now determine that the better view is expressed in the case of Tech Corp. v. Permutit Co., 321 So.2d 562 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), where the court held 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. Such a rule eliminates the unwarranted disparate treatment of those litigants who contest liability only, and those who contest the measure of damages.

In the present case the jury verdict established the amount of damages, and the record evidence indicates that, due to appellee's dissatisfaction with appellants' performance, the parties' contractual relationship was terminated by formal notice prior to the commencement of the proceeding below. The jury verdict in this case thus had the effect of fixing damages as of a prior date, and therefore prejudgment interest should have been awarded.[2]

The order appealed is reversed insofar as it denies the claim for prejudgment interest. The order is otherwise affirmed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

MILLS, J., and WILLIAM C. OWEN, Jr. (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.

1 Appellee presented the case under multiple theories of recovery, and successfully obtained a general jury verdict despite appellants' request for a special verdict. Accordingly, it is necessary on appeal that the verdict be without error on every theory of recovery. See Colonial Stores Inc. v. Scarbrough, 355 So.2d 1181 (Fla. 1978).
2 In accordance with the parties' stipulation, the issue of prejudgment interest was submitted to the trial judge after the jury returned a verdict.