Opinion ID: 73200
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Damages For Emotional Pain and Suffering

Text: American Dredging argues that the district court's award of non-pecuniary damages to Claimants under the Florida Wrongful Death Act conflicts with the longstanding maritime rule that such damages are not available to non-dependent parents of adult children and that the award therefore should be vacated. In American Dredging's first appeal, another panel of this Court concluded that Claimants could recover the non-pecuniary damages available under Florida law. American Dredging, 81 F.3d at 130-31. American Dredging has put forth no grounds on which we may reconsider that decision. D. Prejudgment Interest on Damages For Past Emotional Pain and Suffering American Dredging contends that the district court erred by ordering it to pay prejudgment interest to Claimants on the damage awards for past emotional pain and suffering. We agree. Because Florida law provides the basis for recovery of damages for emotional pain and suffering, Florida law must be applied to determine whether the prejudgment interest award is proper. Cf. Royster Co. v. Union Carbide Corp., 737 F.2d 941, 948 (11th Cir.1984) (In a diversity case we follow the state law governing the award of interest. (citation omitted)). Under Florida law, a claim becomes liquidated and susceptible of prejudgment interest when a verdict has the effect of fixing damages as of a prior date. Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May 9 In concluding that the dredgepipe was difficult to see, the district court also relied on a videotape of the scene taken shortly after the accident. Plumbing Co., 474 So.2d 212, 214 (Fla.1985); see also Alvarado v. Rice, 614 So.2d 498, 499 (Fla.1993) (a plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest when it is determined that the plaintiff has suffered an actual, out-of-pocket loss at some date prior to the entry of judgment). Personal injury plaintiffs are generally not entitled to prejudgment interest because the damages are uncertain and are not liquidated until determined by the jury. Griefer v. DiPietro, 708 So.2d 666, 673 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1998); see also Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Percefull, 653 So.2d 389, 390 (Fla.1995) ([T]ort claims are generally excepted from the rule allowing prejudgment interest, primarily because tort damages are generally too speculative to liquidate before final judgment.); Argonaut Ins. Co., 474 So.2d at 214 n. 1 (We are mindful that this Court has ruled that prejudgment interest is not recoverable on awards for personal injury. (citations omitted)). Claimants in this case are analogous to personal injury plaintiffs—their damages were uncertain and unliquidated until determined by the district court. The district court divided the awards for emotional pain and suffering into two categories—one for past emotional pain and suffering and one for future emotional pain and suffering. This division demonstrates that damages for emotional pain and suffering compensate for injury suffered over time, not injury suffered as of a certain date. We therefore hold that the district erred in awarding prejudgment interest on the damage awards for past emotional pain and suffering.