Background
Merco developed the Akoya condominium, and General Computer Services (GCS) contracted to provide computers and its BeCruising communications system for condominium units. GCS sued Merco in 2006 for breach of contract and quantum meruit, alleging nonpayment despite performance.
After prior appeals and remands, the case went to a damages-only trial. GCS introduced invoices for equipment and contracts with a salesperson, Arnaldo Salas, and a programmer, Jose Barcena. The jury awarded GCS $602,898, and the circuit court later awarded $916,281.90 in prejudgment interest from December 6, 2006.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Merco’s remittitur motion. GCS failed to prove actual losses under the Salas and Barcena contracts: its owner testified that GCS never paid Barcena and paid Salas only about $200. The contract amounts therefore could not support the verdict.
The highest damages award supported by the evidence was $109,098.98: $108,898.98 in documented out-of-pocket expenses plus $200 paid to Salas. On remand, GCS must be offered a remittitur to that amount; if it declines, the circuit court must hold a new trial on damages. If GCS accepts, prejudgment interest must be recalculated on the reduced damages amount. The court otherwise affirmed, including the entitlement to and original method of calculating prejudgment interest.
Key Takeaways
- A damages verdict cannot exceed the losses actually supported by trial evidence.
- Contractual compensation terms alone do not establish recoverable damages when the claimant did not prove it incurred those costs.
- A party rejecting a remittitur is entitled to a new trial limited to damages.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that remittitur is required when a jury award includes unproven expenses. It also preserves prejudgment-interest entitlement while requiring the interest amount to track the legally supportable damages award.