CORNERSTONE DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC., v. WILLIAM M. HARAWAY, III, AND DANA HARAWAY, HUSBAND AND WIFE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
SANTA
ROSA
ASSOCIATES, INC.,
GOLF
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
Appellant,
v.
CASE NO. 1D07-5772
WILLIAM M. HARAWAY, III,
AND
DANA
HARAWAY,
HUSBAND AND WIFE,
Appellees.
CORNERSTONE
DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.,
Appellant,
v.
CASE NO. 1D07-5959
WILLIAM M. HARAWAY, III,
AND
DANA
HARAWAY,
HUSBAND AND WIFE,
Appellees.
_____________________________/
Opinion filed December 12, 2008.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County.
R. V. Swanson, Judge.
Bruce D. Partington and Jeremy C. Branning of Clark, Partington, Hart, Larry,
Bond & Stackhouse, Pensacola, for Appellant Santa Rosa Golf Associates, Inc.
Sherry Grant Hall of Hall & Runnels, P.A., Destin, for Appellant Cornerstone
Development Group, Inc.
Michael W. Kehoe and Robert O. Beasley of Litvak Beasley & Wilson, LLP,
Pensacola, for Appellees.
PER CURIAM.
As these two cases originated from one trial and as the appellants raise the
same arguments in both cases, we consolidate the two cases for the purposes of this
opinion. In this negligence action, the trial court entered final judgment in favor of
the appellees, William and Dana Haraway, and against the appellants, Santa Rosa
Golf Associates, Inc., and Cornerstone Development Group, Inc., jointly and
severally, in the amount of $135,000. With respect to the appellants’ argument
that the trial court erred in adopting both the cost of repairs and the diminution in
value as the measure of damages, we agree and reverse and remand. With respect
to the appellants’ other arguments, we affirm without discussion.
Generally, damages for the wrongful injury of property are measured either
by the diminution in the value of the property, referred to as the diminution in
2
value rule, or by the costs of repairing or restoring the property to its condition
prior to the injury, referred to as the restoration rule. See Davey Compressor Co.
v. City of Delray Beach, 639 So. 2d 595, 596 (Fla. 1994). If the cost of repairs or
restoration is less than the diminution in value, then the law requires that damages
be measured by the costs of repairs or restoration.
If the cost of repairs or
restoration exceeds the diminution in value or if repairing or restoring the property
is impracticable, then the law requires that damages be measured by the diminution
in value. Restricting the costs of repairs or restoration to the diminution in value is
a means to prevent plaintiffs from being overcompensated or from receiving
overlapping recovery. Id.
In the instant case, the trial court erroneously adopted both the cost of
repairs and the diminution in value as the measure of damages. Instead, the trial
court should have adopted only the cost of repairs as the measure of damages. The
cost of repairs did not exceed the diminution in value and there was no evidence
that repairing the appellees’ property was impracticable.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED to the trial
court with directions to enter an amended final judgment consistent with this
opinion.
ALLEN, PADOVANO, and ROBERTS, JJ., CONCUR.
3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
