DELANT CONSTRUCTION CO., APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
DORAL ENTERPRISES JOINT VENTURE, 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.
A general contractor (Delant) and developer (Doral Enterprises) settled a dispute over a failed development project, with Doral agreeing to reimburse Delant for engineering services owed to Coreslab. When Doral sued Delant for alleged overpayment, the court reversed the judgment because Delant had already paid Coreslab in full, leaving Doral with no damages and preventing an unjust windfall.
The judgment against Delant must be reversed because Delant's payment of the full Coreslab obligation left Doral Enterprises totally undamaged by any alleged overpayment, and the law does not permit recovery for damages that have been subsequently reimbursed or resolved.
[1] A party cannot recover damages for an alleged overpayment when the claim for that overpayment was subsequently settled and paid.
[2] A party is not entitled to a recovery for damages that have subsequently been reimbursed.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the law does not permit a windfall by virtue of receiving "a recovery ... for damages which ... had subsequently been reimbursed."”
Establishes the core principle that prevents unjust enrichment when damages have been reimbursed or resolved
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA proposed development in the City of Doral collapsed due to the developer's failure to proceed. Delant Construction, the general contractor, settled …
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 Accord And Satisfaction cases and more on FLexlaw
After a proposed development in the City of Doral collapsed because of the failure of the developer, Doral Enterprises Joint Venture, to proceed, the general contractor, Delant Construction Company, settled its claim for damages with Doral Enterprises, which agreed, among other things, to reimburse Delant for sums owed to Coreslab Structures Miami, Inc., for engineering services on the project.
In the present ease, Doral Enterprises won a money judgment against De-lant for an alleged overpayment based on the theory that it had not paid Coreslab. Delant appeals and we reverse because it is undisputed that, in the course of litigation between the two, Delant indeed settled Coreslab’s claim against it for engineering services and paid Coreslab the *1098entire amount due. That act left Doral Enterprises totally undamaged by reason of its alleged overpayment in the original settlement and, it follows, no basis whatever to support the judgment now on appeal. To the contrary, the law does not permit a windfall by virtue of receiving “a recovery ... for damages which ... had subsequently been reimbursed.” Sharff, Wittmer & Kurtz, P.A. v. Messana, 581 So.2d 906, 907 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), review denied, 592 So.2d 681 (Fla.1991). In other words, the prevention of unjust enrichment requires reversal of the judgment and entry of one for the appellant Delant instead.1 See Sharff, Wittmer & Kurtz, 581 So.2d at 907, and cases cited.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ellison v. Johnson Anderson, 74 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 1954)
- Martinez v. South Bayshore Tower, 979 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Sharff, Wittmer & Kurtz, P.A. v. Messana, 581 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)