Background
Merco Group developed Akoya, a high-rise residential condominium completed in 2005. In September 2003, Merco contracted with General Computer Services, Inc. (GCS), owned by Graciela Roig, to develop and implement BeCruising—a computer system enabling communication between individual units and the front desk, valet parking, and concierge. Under the contract, GCS would provide the system and software for each subscribing unit, while Merco would market and sell the system to unit owners.
GCS sued Merco in December 2006 for breach of contract and quantum meruit, alleging that despite full performance of its obligations—including installing routers, switches, cables, and computer equipment—Merco had not paid for its services. The case languished nearly seventeen years before trial was held on remand from a prior appellate decision that reversed a jury verdict and ordered a new trial on damages.
The Court’s Holding
At the damages trial, GCS presented invoices for materials and equipment, along with copies of independent contractor agreements with two individuals: Arnaldo Salas (for sales) and Jose Barcena (for graphic design and programming). The Salas contract provided for annual salary; the Barcena contract specified $1,000 per unit for a total of $400,000 including common areas. GCS claimed total damages of $802,898.98. The jury awarded $602,898.
Merco moved for remittitur under Florida Statute § 768.74, arguing the award was unsupported by evidence. The trial court denied the motion. The appellate court reversed, finding a “total failure of proof” that GCS actually sustained losses under the contracts. Roig testified that GCS paid Salas only approximately $200—far less than the contract amount—and that GCS never paid Barcena at all. Accordingly, the court held that GCS could recover only its documented out-of-pocket expenses (invoices and bills) plus the $200 paid to Salas, totaling $108,898.98 as the maximum amount supported by evidence.
The court reversed the denial of remittitur and directed the trial court on remand to offer GCS the choice of accepting a remittitur to $108,898.98 or proceeding to a new trial on damages. The court also ordered recalculation of prejudgment interest based on the remitted amount.
Key Takeaways
- Jury verdicts cannot exceed the amount of damages reasonably supported by evidence presented at trial; remittitur is the appropriate remedy for excessive awards unsupported by proof.
- Independent contractor agreements or contract language alone do not establish damages if the contractor was not actually paid the agreed amount.
- Prejudgment interest awards must be recalculated when the underlying damage judgment is modified via remittitur.
- Speculative or conjectural damage amounts will be reduced by appellate courts applying the statutory remittitur standard.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces Florida’s strict evidentiary standard for damage awards in breach of contract cases. Parties seeking damages must prove actual losses—not merely point to contract language or theoretical obligations. The court’s reversal demonstrates that appellate courts retain authority to police jury verdicts that far exceed what the record supports, even when trial courts initially approve them. For defendants, the decision offers a path to challenge excessive verdicts; for plaintiffs, it underscores the critical importance of proving actual damages through competent evidence.
The case also illustrates how lengthy litigation delays (nearly 17 years to trial) and multiple appeals can accumulate, and how appellate review of damages remains vigorous even after jury trials. The direction to offer remittitur before ordering a fourth damages trial reflects judicial preference for settlement over repeated trials on the same issue.