Opinion ID: 2533775
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Argonaut

Text: In Argonaut, Argonaut Insurance Company paid $249,360.51 to the owners of the Colony Club Apartments for damages from a fire caused by the negligence of a May Plumbing Company employee. Argonaut then filed a subrogation action against May and its insurers and was awarded a judgment of $187,020.38 after the apartment owners were found to have been 25% contributorily negligent in the fire. The trial court awarded prejudgment interest. On appeal, the district court reversed the award of prejudgment interest, holding that the comparative negligence factor made the award of damages uncertain and, thus, unliquidated. 474 So.2d at 213. We reversed the district court, explaining, [W]hen a verdict liquidates damages on a plaintiff's out-of-pocket, pecuniary losses, plaintiff is entitled, as a matter of law, to prejudgment interest... from the date of that loss. Id. at 215. In issuing this opinion, we noted that we were not making new law, but were reassert[ing] the stare decisis controlling effect of Supreme Court decisions from the past century, cases from which this Court has never receded. Id. at 214; see also Sullivan v. McMillan, 37 Fla. 134, 19 So. 340, 343 (1896) ([W]herever a verdict liquidates a claim and fixes it as of a prior date, interest should follow from that date.) (quoting 1 Theodore Sedgwick, A Treatise on the Measure of Damages § 300 (8th ed. 1891)); Jacksonville, Tampa & Key West Ry. v. Peninsular Land, Transp. & Mfg Co., 27 Fla. 1, 9 So. 661 (1891) (holding that the measure of damages is just compensation in money equal to the value of the property destroyed including interest). We further explained that since at least before the turn of the century, Florida has adopted the position that prejudgment interest is merely another element of pecuniary damages. Argonaut, 474 So.2d at 214. [2] As we explained: Under the loss theory, ... neither the merit of the defense nor the certainty of the amount of loss affects the award of prejudgment interest. Rather, the loss itself is a wrongful deprivation by the defendant of the plaintiff's property. Plaintiff is to be made whole from the date of the loss once a finder of fact has determined the amount of damages and defendant's liability therefor. Id. at 215. Ultimately, we agreed with the First District Court of Appeal in Bergen Brunswig Corp. v. State, 415 So.2d 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), that the better rule for assessing prejudgment interest is that a claim becomes liquidated and susceptible of prejudgment interest when a verdict has the effect of fixing damages as of a prior date. Argonaut, 474 So.2d at 214 (quoting Bergen Brunswig Corp., 415 So.2d at 767). We reaffirmed our adherence to the loss theory in Florida Steel Corp. v. Adaptable Developments, Inc., 503 So.2d 1232, 1236 (Fla.1986) (reaffirming holding in Argonaut that the loss theory of prejudgment interest is the law in Florida because interest is merely another element of pecuniary damages).