ARENA V. LON WORTH
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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., CASE NO. 3D98-2238 LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 94-14050 Appellees/Cross Appellants.** 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 brief, to have jurisdiction to award future damages. the trial court reserve 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
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.
