Underwriters at LaConcorde v. Airtech Services, Inc.

Supreme Court of Florida

Underwriters at LaConcorde v. Airtech Services, Inc.

493 So. 2d 428, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 300, 1986 Fla. LEXIS 2315

Supreme Court of Florida·Decided July 3, 1986·No. No. 67237·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinions

BARKETT, Justice.

We granted review in this case because the decision below, Underwriters at LaConcorde v. Airtech Services, Inc., 468 So.2d 386 (Fla.3d DCA 1985), directly and expressly conflicts with A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc. v. Suber Cattle Co., 416 So.2d 1176 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), Broward County v. Sattler, 400 So.2d 1031 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), and Fort Pierce Toyota, Inc. v. Wolf, 345 So.2d 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

Subsequent to the Third District’s decision in this case, we decided Argonaut Insurance Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So.2d 212 (Fla.1985). That case is controlling. Accordingly, we quash the decision below with directions to remand the cause to the trial court for the calculation of pre-judgment interest for Underwriters’ out-of-pocket pecuniary loss.

We decline to expand review from the conflict question to the issues raised by [429] respondent which were the subject matter of the cross-appeal below.

It is so ordered.

McDonald, C.J., and ADKINS, OVER-TON, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ„ concur. BOYD, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion.

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

BARKETT, Justice.

We granted review in this case because the decision below, Underwriters at LaConcorde v. Airtech Services, Inc., 468 So.2d 386 (Fla.3d DCA 1985), directly and expressly conflicts with A.O. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc. v. Suber Cattle Co., 416 So.2d 1176 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), Broward County v. Sattler, 400 So.2d 1031 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), and Fort Pierce Toyota, Inc. v. Wolf, 345 So.2d 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

Subsequent to the Third District’s decision in this case, we decided Argonaut Insurance Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So.2d 212 (Fla.1985). That case is controlling. Accordingly, we quash the decision below with directions to remand the cause to the trial court for the calculation of pre-judgment interest for Underwriters’ out-of-pocket pecuniary loss.

We decline to expand review from the conflict question to the issues raised by [429] respondent which were the subject matter of the cross-appeal below.

It is so ordered.

McDonald, C.J., and ADKINS, OVER-TON, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ„ concur. BOYD, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion.

Underwriters at LaConcorde v. Airtech Services, Inc., 493 So. 2d 428, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 300, 1986 Fla. LEXIS 2315 (Fla. 1986).

Pincite

493 So. 2d 428 (Underwriters at LaConcorde v. Airtech Services, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related