The appellate court determined that because the homeowner was not able to prove they suffered any actual damages as a result of the claimed deceptive or unfair trade practice, the trial court should not have allowed the jury to award damages on the homeowner’s FDUPTA claim.
In 2018, the roofing contractor and homeowner entered into a contract for a new metal roof at the homeowner’s property. During the replacement of the roof, the homeowner noticed that stainless steel screws were not always utilized and the roof was not 24-guage. After the installation was complete, the roofing contractor submitted its final invoice, which the homeowner refused to pay. The roofing contractor sued for breach of contract and the homeowner countersued seeking, among other things, damages for alleged violations of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUPTA”).
During trial, the roofing contractor moved for a directed verdict in its favor on the FDUPTA claim, arguing that the homeowner had not proven that it suffered actual damages as a result of the claimed deceptive and unfair trade practices. The trial court denied the motion, and the jury awarded the homeowner $10,740.00 on their FDUPTA claim. The roofing contractor appealed, arguing that while the homeowner may have proven consequential damages due to issues with the roof, they did not prove actual damages and accordingly should not have been entitled any award on their FDUPTA claim.
On appeal, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal first noted that actual damages under FDUPTA requires a loss “as a result of a violation of” FDUPTA. Generally, the measure of actual damages is “the difference in the market value of the product or service in the condition in which it was delivered and its market value in the condition in which it should have been delivered according to the contract between the parties.” Where the product is rendered valueless as a result of the defect, then the purchase price is the appropriate measure of actual damages.
The appellate court then turned to the evidence presented at trial, which was that the contract price for the roof was $65,000.00. The homeowner presented no evidence of the value of the roof as built. The homeowner did present evidence of repair damages of about $9,500.00 related to roof leaks. The homeowner also presented expert testimony that the failure to use stainless steel screws was a defect in the roof and that a number of nails missed the truss, creating attachment issues for the plywood to the trusses. However, the appellate court concluded that none of this established the market value of the roof received by the homeowners, and the repair costs were consequential damages, not actual damages. Accordingly, the appellate court determined that no actual damages were proven, requiring reversal of the jury award on the FDUPTA claim.