OWNER TAKING ASSIGNMENT OF GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S CLAIMS AGAINST A SUBCONTRACTOR(S)

Here’s a scenario that occurs in construction defect cases. An owner sues a general contractor and subs for construction defects.  The owner settles with a number of parties and takes an assignment of the general contractor’s claims against some or all of the subs and pursues the remaining parties for indemnity based on the assignment of the general contractor’s claims.

This was the scenario in Craftsman Plastering and Lath, Inc. v. Rath Mor, LLC, 2026 WL 2328032 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2026). The owner settled with the general contractor and all subs except one. The owner took an assignment of the general contractor’s claim against the sub, and really the indemnity claim. The owner was then substituted as the real party in interest as it relates to the general contractor’s claims against the sub. The owner sought roughly $780,000 in attorney’s fees and costs in connection with the dispute claiming the sub was liable for such fees. The jury didn’t buy the argument and awarded the owner about $55,000. Basically, the jury seemingly prorated the fees by the number of parties, at least, that’s how the math worked out.  The owner didn’t like that and moved for an additur to increase the jury’s verdict which the trial court granted. This was reversed on appeal despite the fact that a trial court has broad discretion to grant a motion for additur.

An additur applies if the trial court finds the jury’s verdict was inadequate. See Craftsman citing Fla. Stat. s. 768.74(2) (citing to factors the trial court needs to consider).

But here’s the issue.  The trial court is NOT here to sit as another juror. The issue is whether “the undisputed evidence supports an award calculation different than that awarded by the jury.” Craftsman, supra.  At trial, the jury could have awarded the damages based on the evidence and jury instructions.

[Owner] defends the additur award by contending “the unrefuted evidence established that [the general contractor] spent almost $780,000 because of [the subcontractor’s] breach and this was the amount that would fairly compensate [Owner].” While [Owner] is correct that [the subcontractor] did not present evidence to support a specific money damages amount, [subcontractor’s] cross-examination of [the general contractor’s attorney] questioned the reliability of the damages amount sought. Specifically, [the subcontractor] noted that [the general contractor’s attorney’s] total damages calculation had included legal fees and costs incurred by suing the other thirteen subcontractors for not performing as agreed, which is not an “act or omission” for which [the subcontractor] agreed to be held liable. Additionally, [subcontractor’s] cross-examination of [the general contractor’s attorney] established that [he] did not bother to separate out the expenses attributable to suing the other subcontractors because “[i]t would probably take weeks to do. You’d have to sit there and go through every entry of billing.”

Craftsman, supra.