CHUBB CUSTOM INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,

v.

U.T. INVESTMENTS, LLC D/B/A BEST VACATION INN, APPELLEE

BERGER, J.

Chubb Custom Insurance Company, (“Chubb”), timely appeals a final judgment in favor of U.T. Investments, LLC, d/b/a Best Vacation Inn, (“U.T.”), in the amount of $3,072.71, despite a jury verdict finding zero damages were owed by Chubb. Chubb contends the record does not support the trial court’s entry of a net judgment in favor of U.T. given a zero jury verdict for U.T. and the unrebutted evidence of prior payments submitted at trial. We agree and reverse.

U.T. owns “The Best Vacation Inn,” a sixty-two room hotel located in Kissimmee, Florida. On August 5, 2009, a fire occurred at the hotel. Thereafter, U.T. sought recovery under its insurance policy with Chubb.

The parties settled U.T.’s claims for contents loss (i.e., business personal property) and business interruption. However, they were unable to settle the claim for building *1018damages. There remained a dispute over the scope of damages to the building and the cost to repair those damages.1 Specifically, there was a large difference between what U.T. believed it was owed under the policy for the fire damage ($1,030,849.13) and what Chubb claimed it had already paid ($371,455.76).

The case proceeded to trial, during which the parties were able to reach an agreement on the scope of damage to twelve of the hotel rooms. As to those twelve rooms, the parties agreed damages totaled $188,734.18. The jury was left to decide whether any additional amounts were owed to U.T. by Chubb. The jury determined no other damages were caused by the fire and returned a zero verdict, finding Chubb owed no additional payments to U.T.2

Despite the jury’s verdict, U.T. moved for entry of final judgment, claiming that pursuant to the stipulation regarding the “fire rooms” during trial, U.T. was entitled to $188,734.18 minus a set-off of $185,661.47, the only amount U.T. asserts was established during trial as having gone toward “building damages,” leaving a total judgment in its favor for $3,072.71.3 Chubb opposed U.T.’s motion, asserting, inter alia, that U.T. ignored the unrebut-ted testimony of Chubb’s adjuster, Don Deckers, that he directed payment to U.T. in the amount of undisputed damages for the building claim as set forth in the revised estimate prepared by Madsen Knep-pers & Associates, structural engineers, which prior testimony established was in the amount of $360,364.18.4 Nevertheless, the court ultimately entered final judgment in U.T.’s favor in the amount of $3,072.71.

A trial court’s finding of fact based on conclusions drawn from undisputed evidence is subject to review by the less restrictive “clearly erroneous” standard of review. See Holland v. Gross, 89 So.2d 255, 258 (Fla.1956). The unrebutted evidence in this case clearly establishes that Chubb paid U.T. no less than $360,364.18 for building damage caused by the August 5, 2009 fire.5 This amount was clearly in *1019excess of the $188,734.18 agreed to by the parties.6 By entering judgment in favor of U.T. in the amount of $8,072.71, the trial court ignored the unrebutted evidence of prior payments on -U.T.’s building claim, as well as the jury’s verdict finding Chubb owed no additional payments to U.T. This was error. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions to vacate the final judgment and enter judgment in favor of Chubb.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

TORPY and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.