Opinion ID: 1697954
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Assessment of Loss-of-Use Damages

Text: Next, we proceed to the truly controlling issue in this case, which the Eleventh Circuit presented in the second certified question. The Court of Appeals essentially posed the key question as how loss-of-use damages are to be measured. The Restatement (Second) of Torts, which the majority correctly recognizes as governing actions that involve loss of use damages in Florida, states: When one is entitled to a judgment for harm to chattels not amounting to a total destruction in value, the damages include compensation for .... (b) the loss of use. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 928 (1979) (emphasis supplied); see also majority op. at 223. We recognized the validity of the above-quoted Restatement (Second) provision when we approved an amended standard jury instruction that included an instruction for loss of use in cases involving damage to personal property. See Standard Jury Instructions (Civil Cases), 290 So.2d 49 (Fla.1974); see also Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Civ.) 6.2(h) (instructing the jury to take into consideration any loss (claimant) sustained ... by being deprived of the use of his (reference property) during the period reasonably required for its [replacement] [repair] when determining the amount of damages to assess in cases involving harm to personal property). This Court and all Florida district courts of appeal follow this Restatement (Second) principle. See, e.g., Badillo v. Hill, 570 So.2d 1067, 1068 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), cited with approval in, Fla. Drum Co. v. Thompson, 668 So.2d 192 (Fla.1996) (Florida appellate courts follow the Restatement (Second) of Torts section 928 when assessing loss-of-use damages); Travelers Indem. Co. v. Parkman, 300 So.2d 284, 285 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974) (same); Meakin v. Dreier, 209 So.2d 252, 253-54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968) (same); Airtech Serv., Inc. v. MacDonald Constr. Co., 150 So.2d 465, 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963) (same); McMinis v. Phillips, 351 So.2d 1141, 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) (applying Restatement (Second) of Torts section 928). However, neither the comments to this section of the Restatement (Second), the comments to Florida's standard jury instruction, nor any of the existing Florida decisions state that a loss of profits or loss of revenue is an essential element for the recovery of loss-of-use damages. Although in my view, the majority opinion may correctly resolve the underlying dispute based on the fact that MCI is actually seeking damages for the loss of capacity or loss of use of its entire system as opposed to damages for the loss of use of the particular fiber-optic cableI write to voice my concern with the majority's broad reasoning that appears to now inject into Florida law a requirement that a showing of lost profits or revenue is a prerequisite to the recovery of any loss-of-use damages in Florida. The analysis of the majority is disconcerting because it relies on non-Florida cases which, in my view, are contrary to the well-established law of this jurisdiction. I find no support in Florida jurisprudence for the proposition that an owner of damaged personal property must demonstrate that the damage has resulted in an actual loss of profits or revenue as a condition precedent to recovery of loss-of-use damages. Rather, Florida precedent time and again has held, consistent with the Restatement (Second), that recovery for the loss of use of an item of personal property is proper when it is demonstrated that the personal property has been harmed by the conduct of another but has not been totally destroyed. This is a completely separate issue from whether loss of profits or revenue has been or can be established. See AT&T Corp. v. Lanzo Constr. Co., 74 F.Supp.2d 1223 (11th Cir. 1999); Merrill Stevens Dry Dock Co. v. Nicholas, 470 So.2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Ft. Lauderdale Transfer & Rigging, Inc. v. Callahan Motor Co., Inc., 446 So.2d 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Meakin v. Dreier, 209 So.2d 252 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Airtech Serv., Inc. v. MacDonald Constr. Co., 150 So.2d 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). Moreover, this Court has held that even where damages for lost profits may not be recoverable due to the doctrine of avoidable consequences, an owner may still be entitled to loss-of-use damages measured by the rental value of a substitute item. See A. Mortellaro & Co. v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 91 Fla. 230, 107 So. 528 (1926). In my view, the extra-jurisdictional cases upon which the majority relies Brooklyn Eastern District Terminal v. United States, 287 U.S. 170, 53 S.Ct. 103, 77 L.Ed. 240 (1932); The Cayuga, 5 F. Cas. 326 (E.D.N.Y.1868), aff'd, 5 F. Cas. 329 (C.C.E.D.N.Y.1870), aff'd, 81 U.S. (14 Wall.) 270, 20 L.Ed. 828 (1871); Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Harris Co., 353 Ark. 487, 109 S.W.3d 637 (2003); and MCI Worldcom Network Services, Inc. v. OSP Consultants, Inc., 266 Va. 389, 585 S.E.2d 540 (2003)do not reflect the law of Florida and, more importantly, are actually contrary to Florida law. Therefore, these non-Florida cases should not provide the basis for our decision. Although damage to the personal property of anothera fiber-optic cable in the instant mattercarries loss-of-use damages, it may not serve as the basis for a claim of loss of capacity or loss of use of the entire system. Thus, while the majority may ultimately arrive with the correct result this case, the supporting legal analysis is, in my view, severely flawed, misdirected, and contrary to longstanding Florida law. This case should be resolved within, and the majority should address, the measure or extent of the loss-of-use damages, and not by eliminating that category of damages from Florida law.