Opinion ID: 2533775
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Bosem

Text: After finding that Bosem's case was not a liquidated damages case, the trial court found that he was nonetheless entitled to prejudgment interest pursuant to what the court considered to be two conflicting principles enunciated in Air Ambulance Professionals, Inc. v. Thin Air, 809 So.2d 28 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). The trial court explained that the conflicting principles were those set forth in Thin Air, that only liquidated damage claims generate prejudgment interest, and set forth in Argonaut, that Florida follows a loss theory where the loss itself is a wrongful deprivation requiring the plaintiff be made whole from the date of the loss once the finder of fact has determined the amount of damages. The trial court declared these principles totally contradictory in the [c]ourt's view. As we discuss next, the trial court correctly interpreted this Court's precedent and Florida's adoption of the loss theory of recovery for pecuniary damages.