Background
Diamond Art Club, LLC appealed a ruling of the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County in its dispute with Lindsay Gosnell. The abbreviated per curiam opinion does not describe the parties’ underlying claims, the evidence presented, or the precise form of the trial court’s judgment.
The authorities cited by the Third District indicate that the appeal concerned proof of damages, particularly lost profits. Gosnell did not appear in the appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District affirmed the circuit court’s ruling. It relied on Florida decisions requiring a claimant to prove lost profits with a reasonable degree of certainty rather than through speculation or conjecture.
The court also cited authority recognizing that nominal damages may be available when a legal wrong or contract breach is established but recoverable damages are not proven. Finally, it invoked the presumption that a trial court’s decision is correct and the appellant’s burden to demonstrate reversible error.
Key Takeaways
- Lost profits must be supported by evidence permitting calculation with reasonable certainty.
- Speculation and conjecture are insufficient to establish an award of lost-profit damages.
- An appellant bears the burden of overcoming the presumption that the trial court ruled correctly.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the evidentiary burden facing Florida litigants who seek lost profits. Proof of wrongdoing or breach does not itself establish entitlement to a claimed amount of consequential damages.
Because the court issued a brief affirmance without discussing the record, the opinion offers no new damages methodology. Its practical message is that parties must develop concrete, nonspeculative evidence in the trial court and must demonstrate actual error on appeal.