PRECISION DIAGNOSTIC, INC., v. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE CO., No. 4D21-48 (Fla 4th DCA 2021)
“We find that the trial court erred in its interpretation of sections 627.736 and 55.03, Florida Statutes (2020), for
purposes of calculating interest, but we agree with the trial court that the amount in controversy—$4.17—was de minimis. We affirm”
I will save you the reading. Interest in Florida is variable. The rate changes quarterly, thus the rate of interest depends on when the benefit became overdue. At that point, the rate of interest resets every January to the rate for that month until the benefit is paid in full.
Most of us in Florida knew this. Progressive did not. But here is the rub or theft:
“A de minimis amount in controversy does not warrant reversal. See Eureka Corp. v. Guardian Tr. Co., 139 So. 198, 199 (Fla. 1932) (“[B]y the well-settled rule of this court under the facts of this case such an allowance was de minimis no curat lex, for which reversal does not lie.”). In United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Alfonso, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp.
887a (Fla. 11th Jud. Cir. July 1, 2010), the court applied the doctrine of “de minimis non curat lex” to a suit for a purported interest miscalculation of $2.53 “brought painfully for no other justification than the award of attorney’s fees.” Id. Similarly, it appears that the present case was brought not for the de minimis interest, but rather for the award of attorney’s fees.”
I think Gary T who hates being shortchanged any interest and an attorney fee would find the doctrine of “de minimis non curat lex” tasteless and sue on constitutional grounds