Burtless v. Pallero

570 So. 2d 1140, 1990 WL 198441
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 12, 1990
Docket90-0261
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 570 So. 2d 1140 (Burtless v. Pallero) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Burtless v. Pallero, 570 So. 2d 1140, 1990 WL 198441 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinion

570 So.2d 1140 (1990)

Carolyn BURTLESS, Appellant,
v.
Alejandro Damian PALLERO and Antonio Manago, Appellees.

No. 90-0261.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

December 12, 1990.

David J. Weiss of Parrillo, Weiss & O'Halloran, Miami, for appellant.

E. Earl Edenfield, Jr. of Hill, Neale and Riley, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

FENNELLY, JOHN E., Associate Judge.

The appellant, plaintiff below, appeals the trial court's dismissal of her complaint with prejudice. We affirm in part and remand to the trial court for further action.

Appellant's auto was totally destroyed as a result of a collision with the vehicle driven by appellee, Alejandro Pallero, and owned by appellee, Antonio Manago. In her complaint, appellant sought to recover the difference between the value of the vehicle on the date of the accident and the remaining balance on the car loan for the vehicle, approximately $2,368.00.

It is, of course, well established that the appropriate measure of damages for total loss of personal property is the property's value on the date of loss. McDonald Air Conditioning, Inc. v. John Brown, Inc., 285 So.2d 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). This rule of recovery was only recently reaffirmed in Polyglycoat v. Hirsch Distributors, Inc., 442 So.2d 958 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). The trial court action in dismissing appellant's complaint with prejudice as to the balance on the car loan was eminently correct and is affirmed.

Appellees concur that appellant is entitled to recover for the deductible amount of her insurance policy, i.e., $500.00. This action is remanded to the trial court for action not inconsistent with this opinion.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED.

ANSTEAD and STONE, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

USA Interactive v. Dow Lohnes & Albertson, P.L.L.C.
328 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (M.D. Florida, 2004)
Carye v. Boca Raton Hotel & Club Ltd. Partnership
676 So. 2d 1020 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Harrington v. State
570 So. 2d 1140 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
570 So. 2d 1140, 1990 WL 198441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burtless-v-pallero-fladistctapp-1990.