Opinion ID: 1725454
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: continuing damages awards

Text: The Fourth District affirmed the trial court's award to Pitsirelos of continuing damages under subsection 681.1095(14), Florida Statutes (1989). The relevant portion of that statute reads: If a decision of the board in favor of the consumer is upheld by the court, recovery by the consumer shall include, if applicable, the pecuniary value of the award, attorney's fees incurred in obtaining confirmation of the award, and all costs and continuing damages in the amount of $25 per day for all days beyond the 40 calendar day period following the manufacturer's receipt of the board's decision. The Fourth District held that the continuing damages provision does not violate constitutional concepts of access to courts or due process. Pitsirelos, 689 So.2d at 1134. We qualifiedly agree. Our conclusion is dependant upon our view that the continuing damages provision is intended solely to reimburse the consumer for expenses relating to the loss of use of the vehicle during the pendency of the trial de novo appeal proceeding. By providing for replacement and refund remedies, the Lemon Law seeks to place consumers in either the position they would have been in had the vehicle conformed to the warranty or the position they would have been in had they not purchased the vehicle. We conclude that the statute liquidates the value of the loss of use at $25 per day rather than requiring the consumer to quantify by proof the loss of use. The remedies provided in the Lemon Law, exclusive of bad faith on the part of the consumer or manufacturer, are compensatory in nature. If we construed the continuing damages provision to punish manufacturers for appealing adverse decisions of the Arbitration Board in good faith, the rights of manufacturers to due process and access to courts would be violated. Consequently, to be constitutional, we hold that the consumer must present evidence of loss of use of the vehicle at the trial de novo appeal to support an award of continuing damages. If the loss of use is proven, the $25 per day represents an appropriate award of liquidated damages. Accordingly, we quash the decision below and remand this case with directions that the trial court conduct a new proceeding in accordance with our opinion. It is so ordered. HARDING, C.J., and SHAW, KOGAN and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. OVERTON, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion.