the original judgment awarded $7,350,000 (200 times $35,000) in indemnity, the amended judgment awards $7,595,000 (217 times $35,000). The difference in the amounts, as the trial court explained, was due to its error in counting the severed plaintiffs twice in determining the number of plaintiffs for whom indemnification was owed. (The severed plaintiffs were those who had died during the litigation. As to these plaintiffs, a determination had to be made regarding their legal successors' entitlement to be paid the settlement awards.) The amended judgment also corrects the calculation of the penalty award. Although the parties have not assigned as error the trial court's amendment of the judgment, we note that whether this type of correction . 4 Cir. 6/10/09), 715 So.2d 574, 576 (<HOLDING>)) 16 .Tate & Lyle argues that procedurally,
holding that a waiver argument was not available because the dispute is over the amount of coverage and not a policy defense that could be waived holding that the appellant waived this argument holding that argument raised at oral argument that was not included in brief is waived holding that where the government does not argue in its brief and did not contend at oral argument that the defendant waived certain issues by not objecting to them at trial then the government waived waiver as a defense holding that policy limits are not a defense to coverage and that policy limits define the amount of coverage