Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Augustine v. Southern Bell Telephone Tel. Co.

91 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 1956)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Augustine v. Southern Bell Telephone Tel. Co.

5 Citing cases

  1. JP Morgan Chase Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Colletti Invs., LLC

    199 So. 3d 395 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 2 times
    Holding that defendant's admitted knowledge from discovery and pleadings that plaintiff sought special damages in some but not all counts, cannot overcome plaintiff's failure to adequately plead special damages in only count of complaint on which plaintiff prevailed

    General damages, on the other hand, are damages that the law presumes actually and necessarily result from the alleged wrong or breach. See Augustine v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 91 So.2d 320, 323 (Fla.1956).The purpose of the special damages rule is to prevent surprise at trial.

  2. Thompson v. Kindred Nursing Centers East, LLC

    211 F. Supp. 2d 1345 (M.D. Fla. 2002)   Cited 256 times
    Denying motion to dismiss where the plaintiff averred in the complaint that "[a]ll conditions precedent to the filing of this action have been satisfied or have occurred" (alteration in original; citation and quotation marks omitted)

    This requirement has been construed by the Florida courts to mean that a claim for special damages is sufficiently pleaded to withstand a motion to strike if it notifies the defendant of the nature of the special damages claimed." Bazal v. Belford Trucking Co., Inc., 442 F. Supp. at 1100 (citing in part Augustine v. Southern Bell Telephone Telegraph Co., 91 So.2d 320, 323 (Fla. 1956)). The Bazal plaintiff alleged that he sought recovery for "emotional distress suffered." Id.

  3. Kaklamanos v. Allstate Ins. Co.

    796 So. 2d 555 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 12 times
    Ruling that damages sustaining an action for breach of contract must not be based upon speculation

    Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Smith, 345 So.2d 784 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Cruz v. Union Gen. Ins., 586 So.2d 91 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Monsanto Co. v. Fuqua, 280 So.2d 496 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); Walden. Since the Plaintiff did not incur any medical expenses which the Defendant did not reimburse, and any damages the Plaintiff might have sustained as a result of the alleged anticipatory breach are too speculative to sustain an action for breach of contract, this Court declines the opportunity to affirm the dismissal but remand with instructions to allow the Plaintiff to amend her complaint. Augusting v. Southern Bell Tel. Tel. Co., 91 So.2d 320 (Fla. 1956) distinguishing Byers v. Southern Bell Tel. Tel. Co., 73 So.2d 875 (Fla. 1954) (dismissal appropriate where on the face of the complaint damages are too speculative to be recoverable). The Court understands the Appellant's frustration at the inability to obtain relief for the insurer's alleged anticipatory breach.

  4. Bazal v. Belford Trucking Co., Inc.

    442 F. Supp. 1089 (S.D. Fla. 1977)   Cited 50 times
    In Bazal, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida recognized the following: "Under Florida law, special or consequential damages that is, damages which do not necessarily result from the injury complained of or which the law does not imply as the result of that injury must be particularly specified in the plaintiffs pleading.

    This requirement has been construed by the Florida courts to mean that a claim for special damages is sufficiently pleaded to withstand a motion to strike if it "notif[ies] the defendant of the nature of the special damages claimed." Augustine v. Southern Bell Telephone Telegraph Co., 91 So.2d 320, 323 (Fla. 1956). See also, Arcade Steam Laundry v. Bass, 159 So.2d 915 (2d D.C.A. 1964).

  5. Ellis v. Crockett

    51 Haw. 45 (Haw. 1969)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that collateral estoppel is properly raised under HRCP Rule 12(b) where it “appears from the face of the complaint or from the taking of judicial notice or prior interrelated proceedings which are alluded to in the complaint”

    General damages are said to encompass all the damages which naturally and necessarily result from a legal wrong done. Augustine v. Southern Bell Telephone Telegraph Co., 91 So.2d 320, 323 (Fla. 1956). Such damages follow by implication of law upon proof of a wrong.