Background
Merco Group developed Akoya, a high-rise residential condominium completed in 2005. In September 2003, Merco and General Computer Services, Inc. (GCS), a computer services company, entered a contract under which GCS would provide the BeCruising System—a communication platform between condominium units and front desk services—and Merco would commit to sell the system to unit owners. GCS sued Merco in December 2006 for breach of contract, alleging Merco failed to pay for services despite GCS’s full performance.
The case proceeded to trial on damages after nearly seventeen years and two prior appeals. At trial, GCS’s owner Graciela Roig testified about the hardware installations and submitted invoices for materials and equipment totaling certain amounts. GCS also presented two independent contractor agreements: one with Arnaldo Salas for sales services and one with Jose Barcena for programming services valued at $400,000. GCS claimed total damages of $802,898.98, and the jury returned a verdict of $602,898.
Merco moved for remittitur, arguing the damages award was unsupported by evidence. The trial court denied the motion, and the court subsequently awarded GCS prejudgment interest of $916,281.90.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s denial of remittitur. Under Florida Statute § 768.74, trial courts must ensure damages awards are reasonably supported by evidence and bear a logical relation to proven injury. The appellate court found critical evidentiary gaps undermining the jury’s award.
Specifically, Roig testified that GCS never paid Jose Barcena anything, yet the jury included the full $400,000 Barcena contract value in damages. Regarding Salas, Roig testified GCS paid him only “$200, something like that,” yet the jury included additional amounts from that contract. Because GCS failed to prove it actually incurred or paid these contractor expenses, the court held GCS could recover only for documented out-of-pocket expenses reflected in invoices and bills, plus the $200 payment to Salas—totaling $108,898.98.
The court ordered the trial court to offer GCS a remittitur to $108,898.98, the maximum amount reasonably supported by evidence. If GCS refuses, a new damages trial must be ordered. The prejudgment interest award must be recalculated based on the remitted amount.
Key Takeaways
- Jury verdicts must be anchored in actual evidence presented at trial; courts cannot permit awards exceeding what the evidence reasonably supports.
- Parties cannot recover full contract values for services allegedly owed to third parties without proof those amounts were actually paid or incurred.
- Trial courts have a duty to apply remittitur standards rigorously when damages awards appear excessive, and appellate courts will reverse denials of remittitur lacking evidentiary foundation.
- This ruling marked the third appellate review of a damages dispute spanning seventeen years, underscoring the critical importance of accurate damages proof at the trial level.
Why It Matters
This decision reaffirms a fundamental principle: damages awards must rest on concrete evidence of loss, not speculation or inference. The jury improperly credited full contract amounts without proof GCS actually paid those sums. By reversing, the court signaled that trial courts must guard against verdict inflation and that appellate review of remittitur denials will scrutinize whether jurors followed the evidence or strayed into conjecture.
For practitioners, the ruling underscores that claimed expenses must be proven through witness testimony or documentation showing actual disbursement. Merely introducing a contract between a party and a third party does not establish that the party lost money to that third party—proof of actual payment or incurrence is required. This evidentiary discipline is especially critical in breach of contract actions seeking consequential damages or recovery for third-party obligations.