Collins, Tuttle Investment Corp. v. Security Underwriting Consultants, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Collins, Tuttle Investment Corp. v. Security Underwriting Consultants, Inc.

210 So. 2d 235, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5516

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 7, 1968

DocketNo. 67-789

StatusPublished

This text of 210 So. 2d 235 (Collins, Tuttle Investment Corp. v. Security Underwriting Consultants, Inc.) 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

Collins, Tuttle Investment Corp. v. Security Underwriting Consultants, Inc., 210 So. 2d 235, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5516 (Fla. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is the second appearance of this cause in this court. See our prior opinion reported in Security Underwriting Consultants, Inc. v. Collins, Tuttle Investment Corp., Fla.App. 1965, 173 So.2d 752.

Following the issuance of the mandate therein, the cause duly came on for trial and resulted in a jury verdict awarding compensatory and punitive damages to the plaintiff therein (appellee here). The appellant has preserved five points for review by this court. Save and excepting the last one, relating to the award of interest, we find the remaining points not to be well taken. Richter Jewelry Co., Inc. v. Harrison, 147 Fla. 732, 3 So.2d 387; Myers v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., Fla.1959, 112 So.2d 263; Fishman v. Liberty Associates, Inc., Fla.App.1967, 196 So.2d 493 ; 2 Fla. Jur., Appeals, § 401; 8 Fla.Jur., Courts, § 103.

Interest on the award of punitive damages should have been allowed only from the time of the verdict. Farrelly v. Heuacker, 118 Fla. 340, 159 So. 24; 9 Fla.Jur., Damages, § 86.

Therefore, the final judgment here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed, with directions to the trial judge to modify the final judgment by the elimination of interest on the punitive damages for the period prior to the verdict.

Affirmed as modified.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is the second appearance of this cause in this court. See our prior opinion reported in Security Underwriting Consultants, Inc. v. Collins, Tuttle Investment Corp., Fla.App. 1965, 173 So.2d 752.

Following the issuance of the mandate therein, the cause duly came on for trial and resulted in a jury verdict awarding compensatory and punitive damages to the plaintiff therein (appellee here). The appellant has preserved five points for review by this court. Save and excepting the last one, relating to the award of interest, we find the remaining points not to be well taken. Richter Jewelry Co., Inc. v. Harrison, 147 Fla. 732, 3 So.2d 387; Myers v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., Fla.1959, 112 So.2d 263; Fishman v. Liberty Associates, Inc., Fla.App.1967, 196 So.2d 493 ; 2 Fla. Jur., Appeals, § 401; 8 Fla.Jur., Courts, § 103.

Interest on the award of punitive damages should have been allowed only from the time of the verdict. Farrelly v. Heuacker, 118 Fla. 340, 159 So. 24; 9 Fla.Jur., Damages, § 86.

Therefore, the final judgment here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed, with directions to the trial judge to modify the final judgment by the elimination of interest on the punitive damages for the period prior to the verdict.

Affirmed as modified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 So. 2d 235, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 5516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collins-tuttle-investment-corp-v-security-underwriting-consultants-inc-fladistctapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack