court’s ruling on a motion for a mistrial this court must affirm the ruling absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. See Wolcott v. State, 774 So.2d 954 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). No such abuse can be found o.n this record because the trial court properly concluded that Smith’s inadvertent comment did not constitute prejudice sufficient to vitiate the entire trial. See Sayad v. Alley, 508 So.2d 485 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)(concluding that two passing references to “insurance” during the trial did not necessitate a mistrial). Lastly, on cross-appeal, Smith argues that the trial court erred by failing to award her interest on the jury verdict from the date the verdict was rendered until, the date the amended final judgement was entered. We affirm. See Amerace v. Stallings, 823 So.2d 110 (Fla.2002)(<HOLDING>). Case No. 5D01-1345 is AFFIRMED. Case No.
holding that evidence was sufficient for jury to determine date employment was to begin holding that the date of the federal indictment not the date of the state arrest was the triggering date for the speedytrial act holding that the statute does not begin to run until at least a demand has been made upon the government but determining that the facts of that case made it unnecessary to choose between the date of demand and the date of actual payment as the triggering date for the running of the statute of limitations holding that interest does not begin to accrue until the date of judgment not the date of verdict holding that a claim for interest on a money judgment did not accrue until the judgment was rendered which was the date on which the trial court issued its order