INAPRO, Inc. v. Leinoff

District Court of Appeal of Florida

INAPRO, Inc. v. Leinoff

602 So. 2d 988, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 8397, 1992 WL 183970

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 4, 1992

DocketNo. 91-1482

StatusPublished

This text of 602 So. 2d 988 (INAPRO, Inc. v. Leinoff) 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

INAPRO, Inc. v. Leinoff, 602 So. 2d 988, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 8397, 1992 WL 183970 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

INAPRO, Inc. and CIGNA Insurance Co. appeal the trial court’s order granting ap-pellee’s motion for judgment in accordance with motion for directed verdict or, alternatively, for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We conclude that the trial court was correct in entering judgment in favor of plaintiff/appellee in the amount of $78,-414.97. While such motions should be cautiously granted, Fountainhead Motel, Inc. v. Massey, 336 So.2d 397, 398 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 344 So.2d 324 (Fla.1977), we conclude that on this point the order is entirely correct.

[989]*989We take a different view, however, with regard to that part of the order which changes the jury’s special interrogatory determination of the date on which payment of the outstanding invoices was due. In our view there was an evidentiary basis on which the jury could reach the conclusion that it did. We therefore reverse that part of the order under review and remand with directions to reinstate the jury’s determination as to the date payment was due, which will be the date from which prejudgment interest will run.

The disposition of this appeal is without prejudice to appellants to pursue such indemnification rights as they may have with respect to the amounts appellants are required to pay.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

INAPRO, Inc. and CIGNA Insurance Co. appeal the trial court’s order granting ap-pellee’s motion for judgment in accordance with motion for directed verdict or, alternatively, for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We conclude that the trial court was correct in entering judgment in favor of plaintiff/appellee in the amount of $78,-414.97. While such motions should be cautiously granted, Fountainhead Motel, Inc. v. Massey, 336 So.2d 397, 398 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 344 So.2d 324 (Fla.1977), we conclude that on this point the order is entirely correct.

[989]*989We take a different view, however, with regard to that part of the order which changes the jury’s special interrogatory determination of the date on which payment of the outstanding invoices was due. In our view there was an evidentiary basis on which the jury could reach the conclusion that it did. We therefore reverse that part of the order under review and remand with directions to reinstate the jury’s determination as to the date payment was due, which will be the date from which prejudgment interest will run.

The disposition of this appeal is without prejudice to appellants to pursue such indemnification rights as they may have with respect to the amounts appellants are required to pay.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

602 So. 2d 988, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 8397, 1992 WL 183970, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inapro-inc-v-leinoff-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack