LAUFEN, INC. AND JAMES JACKSON, APPELLANT,
v.
THOMAS ANDREW AND CONSTANTINA ANDREW, APPELLEE
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.
Laufen, Inc. and James Jackson appealed a final judgment in favor of the Andrews for breach of contract, negligence, FDUTPA violations, and civil theft arising from defective hurricane repair work on their home. The court affirmed damages for breach of contract and FDUTPA claims but reversed the negligence and civil theft awards as unsupported by law, and remanded for entry of a corrected judgment reflecting a single recovery.
The court held that damages for breach of contract and FDUTPA violations were supported by competent, substantial evidence and proper legal grounds, but reversed the negligence award as barred by the economic loss rule and the civil theft award as unsupported by the facts. The court remanded for an amended judgment clarifying that the Andrews are entitled to only a single recovery of damages.
[1] The economic loss rule generally prohibits parties in contractual privity from recovering in tort for damages caused when performing the contract.
[2] A party cannot recover damages for civil theft when the underlying facts do not support such a claim.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 economic loss rule generally prohibits parties in contractual privity from recovering in tort for damages caused when performing the contract”
Establishes why the negligence claim was barred despite the trial court's award
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Andrews contracted with Laufen to repair hurricane damage and make improvements to their oceanfront home in Brevard County, Florida. Laufen breach…
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 Double Recovery Prohibition cases and more on FLexlaw
Laufen, Inc. and James Jackson, defendants below, appeal a final judgment entered following a non-jury trial in favor of Thomas and Constantina Andrew. The Andrews had contracted with Laufen to repair hurricane damage and make other improvements to their oceanfront single family home in Brevard County, Florida. The complaint alleged, and the proof at trial established, that Laufen breached the contract by failing to complete construction; by failing to pay subcontractors for work done; and by causing (and covering up) extensive additional damage to the home. Contrary to Defendants’ argument, we find that the damage amount awarded on the breach of contract count ($1,165,-356.34 together with pre-judgment interest) was supported by competent, substantial evidence. These same (duplicative) damages were also awarded for counts alleging negligence and violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act,), section 501.201, et seq., Florida Statutes (“FDUTPA”). An additional $177,272.72 was awarded under a civil theft theory.
Although it makes no difference in the final judgment amount, we agree with Defendants that Andrews’ recovery on a negligence theory was barred by the economic loss rule given the facts of this case. See, e.g., Vesta Construction and Design, LLC v. Lotspeich & Assocs., Inc., 974 So.2d 1176 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (explaining that the economic loss rule generally prohibits parties in contractual privity from recovering in tort for damages caused when performing the contract). We also agree that the facts adduced at trial do not support an award of damages for civil theft. Seabridge, Inc. v. Superior Kitchens, Inc., 672 So.2d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). However, we find no trial court error with respect to the damages awards on the breach of contract or FDUPTA claims.1 We agree with Defendants that because the same measure of damages applied to both theories of recovery, the final judgment must make clear that the Andrews are only entitled to a single recovery of the damage amount. Montage Group, Ltd. v. Athle-Tech Computer Sys., Inc., 889 So.2d 180, 199 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“A double recovery based on the same elements of damages is prohibited.”).
Accordingly, we reverse as to the negligence and civil theft claims, affirm as to the breach of contract and FDUPTA *900claims, and remand for entry of an amended final judgment consistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
SAWAYA, PALMER and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kritchman v. Hunter Wolk, 152 So. 3d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…t agreement through the first semester of his junior year. Nonetheless, the trial court did not err in denying the claims for written contract and promissory estoppel, as these were merely duplicative of the other claims. See Laufen, Inc. v. Andrew, 83 So. 3d 898, 899 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (final judgment should make it clear that [*633] plaintiffs are only entitled to a single damages award on two theories of recovery); J & L Enter. v. Jones, 614 So. 2d 1151, 1158 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (party entitled to relief…
Authorities Cited
- Montage Grp., Ltd. v. Athle-Tech Computer Sys., Inc., 889 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Vesta Constr. & Design, L.L.C. v. Lotspeich & Assocs., Inc., 974 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)
- Seabridge, Inc. v. Superior Kitchens, Inc., 672 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)