SPECIALTY INSULATION & WATERPROOFING, ETC., APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
ALLIANCE INVESTMENT GROUP, INC., APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the judgment for the property owner on defective roof installation claims, reversed the trial court's override of the jury verdict on the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claim, and remanded for entry of judgment consistent with the jury's verdict.
The trial court erred in setting aside the jury's verdict in favor of Schmidter on the FDUTPA claim because the evidence did not establish as a matter of law that Schmidter committed a fraudulent or deceptive trade practice.
[1] A trial court errs in setting aside a jury verdict on a FDUTPA claim when the evidence does not establish as a matter of law that the defendant committed a fraudulent or…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSpecialty Insulation & Waterproofing and Mark Schmidter were sued by a property owner for defective roof installation. The jury returned a verdict in …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse FDUTPA cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING/CLARIFICATION
GRIFFIN, J.
Appellee’s motion for clarification of this court’s opinion is granted. Its motion for rehearing is denied. We withdraw the prior opinion and issue the following clarified opinion in its place.
Specialty Insulation & Waterproofing, Inc. [“Specialty”] and Mark Schmidter [“Schmidter”] appeal a judgment entered in favor of a property owner on claims involving the defective installation of a roof. The property owner has cross-appealed a set-off against damages. We find no merit to appellants’ claim that the lower court improperly deprived them of their right to arbitrate. The right was plainly waived. We agree, however, that the lower court erred in setting aside the jury’s verdict in favor of Schmidter on the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claim and awarding judgment in favor of the property owner. It cannot be said on the evidence that Schmidter was guilty of a fraudulent or deceptive trade practice as a matter of law and there was evidence from which the jury could have concluded there was, in fact, no statutory violation. We reverse on this issue and remand with instructions for entry of judgment in accordance with the jury’s verdict and vacation of the award of fees. Without a judgment on the Chapter 501 claim, there is no legally sufficient basis for an award of attorneys’ fees. The set-off issue was correctly decided.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
PETERSON and PLEUS, JJ., concur.