98-2238 ARENA V. LON WORTH

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 98-2238 ARENA V. LON WORTH

Case Date: 12/19/2001

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D. 2001

ARENA PARKING, INC., etc., et al.,

**

** Appellants/Cross Appellees, ** vs. ** LON WORTH CROW INSURANCE ** AGENCY, etc., et al., Appellees/Cross Appellants.**

CASE NO.

3D98-2238 94-14050

LOWER TRIBUNAL NO.

Opinion filed December 19, 2001. An Appeal and Cross Appeal from the Circuit Court for MiamiDade County, Margarita Esquiroz, Judge. Deehl & Carlson, and David L. Deehl and Michele K. Feinzig, Hinshaw & Culbertson, and Hugh J. Connolly and Andrew E. Grigsby, for appellants. Demahy, Labrador & Drake, and Kenneth Drake, for appellees. Before JORGENSON, GERSTEN, and RAMIREZ, JJ. RAMIREZ, J. ON MOTION FOR REHEARING OR CLARIFICATION ON ORDER ON MOTION TO ENFORCE MANDATE This is the third appearance of this case before us. On

September 26, 2001, we issued an order enforcing mandate. We will

now endeavor to clarify that order. The initial issue on appeal was that the jury found for Appellant Arena Parking, Inc., but only awarded damages in the amount of $28,500, when the undisputed evidence showed that the damages incurred by Arena Parking and the intervenor, Florida East Coast Railway Co., were $176,864.40. We ordered the trial court to grant an additur in the amount of $120,889.57, plus prejudgment interest, which had to be re-computed. We also directed the trial court to approve the proposed Second Final Judgment. That judgment states that the trial court will retain jurisdiction "to consider any application for and to enter an additional judgment or judgments for future damages .... Upon proper filing of a motion and notice of hearing, the Court will conduct one or more evidentiary hearings to determine the amount of any such future damages." language is too broad. Parking's initial We recognize now that such

It was our intent, as requested in Arena to have the trial court reserve

brief,

jurisdiction to award future damages.

It was not our intent to

deprive anyone of the right to trial by jury as to those future damages. Likewise, it was not our intent to express any opinion as to whether or not those damages could exceed the limits of the policy that should have been procured by appellee Lon Worth Crow Insurance Agency. We therefore grant clarification and direct the trial court to

2

grant an additur in the amount of $120,889.57, plus prejudgment interest. The trial court is simply to retain jurisdiction to deal with any future damages.

3

Download 98-2238 ARENA V. LON WORTH.pdf