USCA11 Case: 19-13182 Date Filed: 12/09/2020 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
Nos. 19-13182, 19-13394
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cv-24223-KMW
A.T.O. GOLDEN CONSTRUCTION CORP.,
a Florida Corporation,
Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee-Cross Appellant,
versus
ALLIED WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY,
a foreign insurance corporation,
Defendant-Appellant-Cross Appellee,
PETE VICARI GENERAL CONTRACTOR, LLC,
Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant-Cross Appellee.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(December 9, 2020)
USCA11 Case: 19-13182 Date Filed: 12/09/2020 Page: 2 of 4
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, HULL and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
These appeals arise from state-law breach-of-contract claims by
subcontractor A.T.O. Golden Construction (“ATO”) against general contractor
Pete Vicari General Contractor (“Vicari”), and its surety, Allied World Insurance
Company (“Allied”), involving construction projects on two residential towers (the
“two projects”). After a trial, the jury returned a $75,000 verdict in favor of ATO
as to one tower (“Civic Tower”) and $50,000 as to the other (“Civic Tower
Senior”). After the verdict and post-trial motions, the district court entered final
judgment in the amount of $125,000, plus interest of $9,729.16, in favor of ATO
and against Vicari and Allied.
Appellants Vicari and Allied now appeal the district court’s final judgment
and the denial of their motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial.
Appellee ATO filed a cross-appeal as to an evidentiary issue in the event a new
trial was granted. After review of the record and with the benefit of oral argument,
we affirm the district court’s final judgment and denial of Appellants’ motions.
I. Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law
We review de novo a ruling on a motion for judgment as a matter of law,
considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Eghnayem v. Bos. Sci. Corp.,
873 F.3d 1304, 1313 (11th Cir. 2017). On appeal,
2
USCA11 Case: 19-13182 Date Filed: 12/09/2020 Page: 3 of 4
the Appellants do not challenge the jury charge as to damages or that ATO could
sue for quantum meruit damages. Rather, Appellants contend primarily that ATO
presented no competent or legally sufficient evidence of its quantum meruit
damages to support the jury’s verdict.
After extensive record review, we conclude that the district court did not err
in denying the Appellants’ motions for judgment as a matter of law. At trial,
Appellee ATO presented competent and legally sufficient evidence of its quantum
meruit damages to support the jury’s verdict of $75,000 as to the Civic Tower and
$50,000 as to the Civic Tower Senior. This evidence included, for example, some
change orders and testimony that adequately established the reasonable value of
the work, materials, and services provided by ATO as to each tower. Further, in
the light most favorable to ATO, the unpaid sums for change orders—without
including the overhead and profit in them—exceed the amount of the jury’s verdict
as to each tower. See Emerald Pointe Prop. Owners’ Ass’n, Inc. v. Com. Constr.
Indus., Inc.,
978 So. 2d 873, 879 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008) (stating, in quantum
meruit, “damages are calculated by adding the reasonable value of the labor and
services rendered, as well as materials furnished” and “do not include profits”);
Puya v. Superior Pools, Spas & Waterfalls, Inc.,
902 So. 2d 973, 976 (Fla. Dist. Ct.
App. 2005) (stating, in quantum meruit, “the contractor’s measure of damages is
3
USCA11 Case: 19-13182 Date Filed: 12/09/2020 Page: 4 of 4
the reasonable value of the labor and services rendered, and materials furnished”
(quotation marks omitted)).
II. Motions for New Trial
We review the denial of a motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion.
Collins v. Marriott Int’l, Inc.,
749 F.3d 951, 960 (11th Cir. 2014).
Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Appellants’
motions for a new trial because (1) the liability and damages findings were not
against the weight of the evidence, and (2) the verdict was not an impermissible
compromise.1
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Appellants’ motions and
its entry of final judgment of $125,000 and $9,729.16 in interest in favor of ATO
and against Appellants Vicari and Allied. Because we affirm the jury’s verdict and
final judgment in favor of the Appellee ATO, we need not (and do not) reach the
evidentiary issue raised in ATO’s conditional cross-appeal.
AFFIRMED.
1
While the verdict was initially against only Vicari and in favor of Allied, the district
court subsequently determined that Allied should be added to the final judgment for a number of
reasons. We reject Allied’s claim on appeal that there was an impermissible compromise
verdict. Because Allied has claimed no other error as to its inclusion in the final judgment, we
need go no further.
4
