Charles Buzbee & Sons, Inc. v. Falkner, 585 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). · Go Syfert
Search
Charles Buzbee & Sons, Inc. v. Falkner, 585 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ino Halegua v. Victor Lerner (fladistctapp, 2024-09-04)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ino Halegua v. Victor Lerner
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
See Celotex Corp. v. Buildex, Inc., 476 So. 2d 294, 295 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (“[W]here a disputed contractual claim becomes liquidated by jury verdict as to the amounts recoverable, interest should be awarded from the date the payment was due.”); Charles Buzbee & Sons, Inc. v. Falkner, 585 So. 2d 1190, 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (finding error when the trial court awarded prejudgment interest from the date of the verdict rather than July 30, 1987, as the record reflected the plaintiff’s damages became liquated at said date).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) CREATIVE INVESTORS, INC. v. SERGIO SANTIBANEZ
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
Auth., Inc. v. Jones, 24 So. 3d 1271, 1272 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (“[T]here does not have to be a special verdict as to the date of loss, where the loss is established by the verdict and the pertinent date can be ascertained from the evidence.”); Charles Buzbee & Sons, Inc. v. Falkner, 585 So. 2d 1190, 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (reversing denial of award of prejudgment interest where record reflected date of loss).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Arizona Chemical Company, LLC v. Mohawk Industries, Inc., and Aladdin etc.
unknown court · 2016 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
See CES, 25 So.3d at 596-97 ; cf. Charles Buzbee & Sons, Inc. v. Falkner, 585 So.2d 1190, 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (holding, in a tort action for crop damage, that prejudgment interest was to run from the date the plaintiff “realized in dollars the degree of loss he sustained as a result of’ the defendant’s spraying of an herbicide in a neighboring field); but see Centex-Rooney Constr.
cited Cited "see" SEB S.A. v. Sunbeam Corporation
11th Cir. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Charles Buzbee & Sons, Inc. v. Falkner, 585 So.2d 1190, 1191 (Fla. Dist.Ct.App.1991).
cited Cited "see" RDR COMPUTER CONSULTING v. Eurodirect, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Charles Buzbee & Sons, Inc. v. Falkner, 585 So.2d 1190, 1191 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); see also Vining v. Martyn, 660 So.2d 1081, 1082 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
discussed Cited "see" Vining v. Martyn
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Charles Buzbee & Sons, Inc. v. Falkner, 585 So.2d 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (reversible error not to award prejudgment interest on ostensible basis that date of loss could not be determined where it was apparent from the record).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Underhill Fancy Veal, Inc. v. Padot
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Charles Buzbee & Sons, Inc. v. Falkner, 585 So.2d 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
CHARLES BUZBEE & SONS, INC., Appellant,
v.
Thomas A. FALKNER, Appellee.
91-00060, 91-00293.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Sep 20, 1991.
585 So. 2d 1190
1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 9332
1991 WL 183848
Frank.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

[*1191] Michael M. Ingram of Alley & Ingram, Tampa, for appellant.

Bonita L. Kneeland of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P.A., Tampa, for appellee.

FRANK, Judge.

Buzbee & Sons, Inc., a large scale vegetable farming concern in Ruskin, Florida, sued Falkner, another farmer, for damages to part of Buzbee's tomato crop resulting from Falkner's spraying of the herbicide Roundup on his cucumber fields in the spring of 1987. Falkner sprayed when wind conditions caused the herbicide to drift onto Buzbee's crops; and the Roundup destroyed a large portion of the tomatoes on Buzbee's field. After a trial the jury awarded Buzbee damages in an amount exceeding $249,000.00. The trial court, however, denied Buzbee's motion for prejudgment interest and awarded interest only from the date of the verdict. That ruling was in error.

The trial court denied Buzbee's motion for prejudgment interest ostensibly on the ground that the date of loss could not be determined. The record reflects, however, that Buzbee's damages became liquidated at the moment when the packing house provided Buzbee with the end of season accounting report and distributed to him the net proceeds from the sale of the tomatoes. That date was July 30, 1987. In our view, the jury would have been at a loss to determine the amount of damages without reference to the difference between the proceeds distributed to Buzbee and the normal anticipated return, facts which became apparent on July 30, 1987. Other dates associated with Buzbee's demand for compensation are irrelevant. No Florida case has yet changed the essential aspect of Argonaut Insurance Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So.2d 212 (Fla. 1985), that: "when a verdict liquidates damages on a plaintiff's out-of-pocket, pecuniary losses, plaintiff is entitled, as a matter of law, to prejudgment interest at the statutory rate from the date of that loss." That date, in this instance, was July 30, 1987, when Buzbee realized in dollars the degree of loss he sustained as a result of the Roundup.

Accordingly, we reverse the order denying prejudgment interest and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

RYDER, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.