FI L ED

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S

EL EVENTH CI RCUI T

MARCH 16, 2011

J OHN L EY

CL ERK [ D O N O T P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

N o

. 0 9

- 1 6 2 7 3

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

D

. C

. D o c k e t N o

. 0 7

- 2 2 1 2 0

- C V

- C M M

F I S K E L E C T R I C C O M P A N Y

,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

C r o s s

- A p p e l l a n t

,

v e r s u s

S O L O C O N S T R U C T I O N C O R P O R A T I O N

,

L I B E R T Y M U T U A L I N S U R A N C E C O M P A N Y

,

D e f e n d a n t s

- A p p e l l a n t s

C r o s s

- A p p e l l e e s

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

A p p e a l s f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t

f o r t h e S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f F l o r i d a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

( M a r c h 1 6

, 2 0 1 1 )

B e f o r e E D M O N D S O N

, P R Y O R

, a n d B A R K S D A L E

, C i r c u i t J u d g e s

. *

Honora ble Rhesa H. B arksda le, United States Circuit J udg e for the Fif th Circuit, sit ting *

by desig nation.P E R C U R I A M :

T h i s c a s e p r e s e n t s i s s u e s f r o m a c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t d i s p u t e

.

P l a i n t i f f / A p p e l l e e F i s k E l e c t r i c C o

. ( “ F i s k ” ) p r e v a i l e d o n i t s b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t

c l a i m s f o l l o w i n g a j u r y t r i a l

. T h e j u r y a w a r d e d P l a i n t i f f $ 9 6 4

, 9 7 6 a g a i n s t

D e f e n d a n t / A p p e l l a n t S o l o C o n s t r u c t i o n C o r p

. ( “ S o l o ” ) a n d $ 4 1 0

, 9 8 9 a g a i n s t

D e f e n d a n t / A p p e l l a n t L i b e r t y M u t u a l I n s u r a n c e C o

. ( “ L i b e r t y M u t u a l ” )

.

F o l l o w i n g t h e t r i a l

, P l a i n t i f f m o v e d t o m o d i f

y t h e j u r y ’ s v e r d i c t a n d t o e n t e r

j u d g m e n t m a k i n g b o t h d e f e n d a n t s j o i n t l y a n d s e v e r a l l y l i a b l e f o r t h e e n t i r e a w a r d

.

D e f e n d a n t s m o v e d f

o r a n e w t r i a l

, a l l e g i n g e r r o r i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s e v i d e n t i a r y

r u l i n g s

. T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e n i e d b o t h m o t i o n s

, a n d t h i s a p p e a l a n d c r o s s

- a p p e a l

r e s u l t e d

. N o r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r h a s b e e n s h o w n ; w e a f f i r m

.

I

. B A C K G R O U N D

S o l o e n t e r e d i n t o a c o n t r a c t w i t h t h e M i a m i

- D a d e A v i a t i o n D e p a r t m e n t

( “ D e p a r t m e n t ” ) t o s u p p l y l a b o r a n d s e r v i c e s f o r a n e x p a n s i o n p r o

j e c t a t M i a m i

D a d e I n t e r n a t i o n a l A i r p o r t

. S o l o s e r v e d a s t h e g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r a n d h i r e d

P l a i n t i f f a s a s u b c o n t r a c t o r

. T h e c o n t r a c t b e t w e e n P l a i n t i f f a n d S o l o i n c l u d e d a

2p a y

- w h e n

- p a i d p r o v i s i o n t h a t s t a t e d S o l o w o u l d p a y P l a i n t i f f w h e n t h e D e p a r t m e n t

p a i d S o l o

. L i b e r t y M u t u a l p r o v i d e d S o l o w i t h a s u r e t y b o n d f o r t h e p r o

j e c t

.

P l a i n t i f f i n i t i a t e d t h i s s u i t t o r e c o v e r u n p a i d c o n t r a c t b a l a n c e s a n d a d d i t i o n a l

e x p e n s e s i n c u r r e d d u e t o c o n s t r u c t i o n d e l a y s

. P l a i n t i f f a l l e g e d t h a t S o l o b r e a c h e d

t h e i r c o n t r a c t a n d t h a t b o t h S o l o a n d L i b e r t y M u t u a l b r e a c h e d t h e t e r m s o f t h e

s u r e t y b o n d

.

W h i l e t h i s s u i t w a s p e n d i n g

, P l a i n t i f f p a r t i c i p a t e d i n m e d i a t i o n w i t h S o l o

a n d t h e D e p a r t m e n t t o r e s o l v e o u t s t a n d i n g c o n t r a c t c l a i m s a m o n g P l a i n t i f f

, S o l o

,

a n d t h e D e p a r t m e n t

. A s a r e s u l t o f t h e m e d i a t i o n

, t h e D e p a r t m e n t n e g o t i a t e d a

s e t t l e m e n t a n d p a i d S o l o

. P l a i n t i f f u n d e r s t o o d t h a t S o l o w o u l d p a y P l a i n t i f f a f t e r

r e c e i v i n g t h e p a y m e n t f r o m t h e D e p a r t m e n t

, b u t P l a i n t i f f d i d n o t g e t p a i d

.

D e f e n d a n t s l a t e r f

i l e d a n s w e r s r a i s i n g a s a n a f f i r m a t i v e d e f

e n s e t h e p a y

w h e n

- p a i d c l a u s e

. B e f

o r e t r i a l

, S o l o m o v e d t o e x c l u d e a l l e v i d e n c e a b o u t t h e

m e d i a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s

. T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n

. T h e d i s t r i c t

c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t S o l o

- - b y r a i s i n g t h e p a y

- w h e n

- p a i d c l a u s e a s a n a f f i r m a t i v e

d e f e n s e a n d a r g u i n g t h a t S o l o w a s n e v e r p a i d b y t h e D e p a r t m e n t o n P l a i n t i f f ’ s

c l a i m s

- - h a d o p e n e d t h e d o o r t o a d m i s s i o n o f e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e m e d i a t i o n r e s u l t e d

i n t h e D e p a r t m e n t ’ s p a y i n g S o l o

.

T h e c a s e w e n t t o t r i a l

. A t t r i a l

, a F i s k e x e c u t i v e t e s t i f i e d t h a t m e d i a t i o n h a d

3t a k e n p l a c e a n d r e s u l t e d i n a p a y m e n t t o S o l o

. T h e F i s k e x e c u t i v e a l s o t e s t i f i e d

t h a t h e u n d e r s t o o d F i s k w o u l d b e p a i d f o l l o w i n g t h e D e p a r t m e n t ’ s p a y m e n t t o S o l o

a n d t h a t t h e m e d i a t i o n s e t t l e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e D e p a r t m e n t a n d S o l o w a s i n t e n d e d

t o e n c o m p a s s F i s k ’ s c l a i m s

.

T h e j u r y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t S o l o b r e a c h e d i t s c o n t r a c t w i t h P l a i n t i f f a n d f o u n d

t h a t L i b e r t y M u t u a l b r e a c h e d t h e t e r m s o f i t s p a y m e n t b o n d

. I t a w a r d e d P l a i n t i f f

$ 9 6 4

, 9 7 6 a g a i n s t S o l o a n d $ 4 1 0

, 9 8 9 a g a i n s t L i b e r t y M u t u a l

. 1

B o t h s i d e s l a t e r m a d e p o s t

- t r i a l m o t i o n s : P l a i n t i f f m o v e d t o m o d i f

y t h e

v e r d i c t t o m a k e D e f

e n d a n t s j o i n t l y a n d s e v e r a l l y l i a b l e f o r t h e t o t a l a m o u n t o f

d a m a g e s : m o r e t h a n $ 1

. 3 m i l l i o n

. D e f e n d a n t s m o v e d f

o r a n e w t r i a l

, c o n t e n d i n g

e r r o r i n t h e a d m i s s i o n o f t e s t i m o n y a b o u t t h e m e d i a t i o n a n d c o n t e n d i n g t h a t t h e

t e s t i m o n y t a i n t e d t h e j u r y ’ s v e r d i c t

. T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n s ; b o t h

The ve rdict for

m rea d this way : 1

1. Do y ou find that Solo Cons truction Corporation bre ache d its contract with F isk Electric

Company ? Yes __ No __

I f y our answe r to this question is y es, plea se answe r question No. 2.

2. What do y ou find is the amount of dama g es sustained by Fisk Elec tric Company

as a

result of Solo Construction Corporation’s brea ch of c ontrac t?

3. Do y ou find that L iberty Mutual I nsuranc e Company brea ched the terms of the pa y ment

bond? Yes __ No __

I f y our answe r to this question is y es, plea se answe r question No. 4.

4. What do y ou find is the amount of dama g es sustained by Fisk Elec tric Company

as a

result of L iberty

Mutual Company ’s bre ach of its pay ment bond?

The jury marke d “y es” to the f

irst and third questions and wrote in the amount of dama g es for

the sec ond and four

th questions.

4p a r t i e s a p p e a l

.

I I

. D I S C U S S I O N

A

. P l a i n t i f

f ’ s M o t i o n t o M o d i f

y t h e J u r y ’ s V e r d i c t

P l a i n t i f f a s s e r t s t h a t t h e j u r y ’ s a w a r d o f $ 9 6 4

, 9 7 6 a g a i n s t S o l o a n d $ 4 1 0

, 9 8 9

a g a i n s t L i b e r t y M u t u a l i n d i c a t e s t h e j u r y ’ s i n t e n t t o g r a n t P l a i n t i f f t h e f u l l r e l i e f

s o u g h t : $ 1

, 3 7 5

, 9 6 5

. P l a i n t i f f t h e n a r g u e s t h a t

, g i v e n t h a t t h e j u r y i n t e n d e d t o 2

a w a r d P l a i n t i f

f f u l l r e l i e f

, F l o r i d a l a w a n d t h e t e r m s o f t h e p a y m e n t b o n d m a n d a t e

t h a t t h e v e r d i c t s h o u l d b e m o d i f i e d t o m a k e e a c h d e f

e n d a n t j o i n t l y a n d s e v e r a l l y

l i a b l e f o r t h e t o t a l a w a r d

.

P l a i n t i f f ’ s s p e c u l a t i o n s a b o u t t h e j u r y ’ s i n t e n t m i g h t b e c o r r e c t

. B u t w e d o

n o t n e e d t o r e s o l v e t h i s q u e s t i o n b e c a u s e P l a i n t i f f d i d n o t r a i s e a n o b

j e c t i o n t o t h e

v e r d i c t b e f

o r e a g r e e i n g t o t h e j u r y ’ s d i s m i s s a l

. P l a i n t i f f ’ s “ f a i l u r e t o r a i s e i t s

o b j e c t i o n b e f

o r e t h e j u r y w a s d i s c h a r g e d w a i v e d t h e r i g h t t o c o n t e s t t h e v e r d i c t s o n

t h e b a s i s o f a l l e g e d i n c o n s i s t e n c y

. ” M a s o n v

. F o r d M o t o r C o

. , 3 0 7 F

. 3 d 1 2 7 1

,

Plaintiff sought to re cover $410,989 owed on the subc ontrac t and $964,976 for a dded 2

costs incurre d in maintaining a irfield lig hting due to delay s in construction, for a total of

$1,375,965.

51 2 7 5

- 7 6 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 2 )

.

H a d P l a i n t i f

f o b j e c t e d a t t h e t i m e t h e v e r d i c t w a s r e n d e r e d

, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t

c o u l d h a v e e x a m i n e d t h e j u r y ’ s v e r d i c t t o r e s o l v e a n y p o t e n t i a l i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s

.

I n s t e a d

, P l a i n t i f

f c o n s e n t e d t o t h e j u r y ’ s d i s m i s s a l a n d w a i t e d u n t i l a p o s t

- t r i a l

m o t i o n t o r a i s e t h e i s s u e

. A p p e l l a t e r e v i e w i s n o t t h e a p p r o p r i a t e t i m e t o r e s o l v e

a l l e g e d i n c o n s i s t e n c e s : w e c a n n o t b e r e a s o n a b l y s u r e a t t h i s l a t e d a t e e x a c t l y w h a t

t h e j u r y i n t e n d e d w h e n r e n d e r i n g i t s v e r d i c t

. A n y p a r t y w i s h i n g t o c l a r i f y t h e j u r y ’ s

b a s i s f o r i t s v e r d i c t w a s f

r e e t o d o s o w h i l e t h e j u r y w a s s t i l l e m p a n e l e d ; t h e f a i l u r e

t o o b j e c t w a i v e d t h e a b i l i t y l a t e r t o s e e k r e v i e w o f a l l e g e d i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s

. S e e i d

.

P l a i n t i f f ’ s r e q u e s t e d r e l i e f

- - i n c r e a s i n g t h e a w a r d a g a i n s t e a c h o f t h e

d e f e n d a n t s t o a g r e a t e r a m o u n t t h a n t h e j u r y a w a r d e d a g a i n s t e i t h e r i n d i v i d u a l

d e f e n d a n t

- - a l s o l i m i t s o u r r e v i e w

. P l a i n t i f f r e l i e s o n U n i t e d A l u m a G l a s s v

.

B r a t t o n C o r p

. , 8 F

. 3 d 7 5 6 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 1 9 9 3 ) ( “ U n i t e d A l u m a ” ) t o s u p p o r t i t s c l a i m

t h a t t h i s C o u r t s h o u l d m o d i f y t h e j u r y ’ s v e r d i c t

. U n i t e d A l u m a i s t o o d i f f e r e n t t o

g u i d e t h e o u t c o m e i n t h i s c a s e

. U n i t e d A l u m a m i g h t h a v e a l l o w e d P l a i n t i f f r e l i e f 3

The United A luma sureties -- per the jury verdic t -- esc aped liability altog ether

despite a 3

brea ch by the def endant c ontrac tors (the sure ty ’s principa ls) and an a war d of dama g es ag ainst

the principa ls. United Aluma, 8 F.3d a t 757. We decided that the sur ety as a ma tter of law

was

liable for the sum for which the principal ha d been f ound liable. I d. at 759. I n the pre sent ca se,

the jury deter mined the surety

and contr actor

wer e ea ch liable f

or a spe cific a

nd differ ent sum.

Whil e the United A luma plaintiff soug ht to amend the ver dict to make the sure ties liable to the

same e x tent as the princ ipals, Plainti ff he re move d in the District Court for something differ ent:

to impose a g rea ter a mount of damag es on both principal a nd surety than the jury

awa rded

ag ainst either one

.

6t h r o u g h a m o t i o n f o r a n a m e n d m e n t t o m a k e L i b e r t y M u t u a l j o i n t l y a n d s e v e r a l l y

l i a b l e f o r t h e s a m e s u m t h a t t h e j u r y a w a r d e d a g a i n s t i t s p r i n c i p a l S o l o : $ 9 6 4

, 9 7 6

.

B u t w e n e e d n o t d e c i d e t h a t q u e s t i o n t o d a y b e c a u s e P l a i n t i f f n e v e r m o v e d f

o r t h a t

r e l i e f i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r e v e n a r g u e d f o r i t h e r e

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o m m i t t e d

4

n o r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r b y f

a i l i n g t o g r a n t r e l i e f n o t a s k e d f o r : t h a t i s

, a m e n d i n g t h e

v e r d i c t t o m a k e L i b e r t y M u t u a l j o i n t l y a n d s e v e r a l l y l i a b l e f o r t h e s a m e s u m

a w a r d e d a g a i n s t S o l o

. 5

B

. D e f e n d a n t s ’ M o t i o n f

o r a N e w T r i a l

D e f e n d a n t s a r g u e t h a t t h e a d m i s s i o n o f e v i d e n c e o n t h e p a r t i e s ’ m e d i a t i o n

p r o c e e d i n g s v i o l a t e d F l o r i d a l a w a n d F e d e r a l R u l e o f E v i d e n c e 4 0 8 a n d t a i n t e d t h e

j u r y ’ s v e r d i c t

.

This step is differe nt from any thing in United Aluma. Such a result could we ll raise

difficult questions about whethe r we had impermissibly g rante d additur. See D imick v. Schiedt,

55 S. Ct . 296, 301 (1935).

I n Plaintiff’s motion before the district court, it reque sted that “judg ment be ente red 4

upon the ver dict ag ainst [S olo] and [L iberty ], j ointly and seve rally , in the principal a mount of

$1,375,965.” Nowhe re did Plaintiff re quest any alterna tive relief

.

Plaintiff also cites Fla . Stat. § 255.05, for the proposition that “[u] nder F lorida law, . . . 5

a pay ment bond surety

is liable for the de bts of its principal.” Nothing in § 255.05 require s that

Def endants be held jointly

and seve rally

liable. I nstead, the statute me rely states that a “ claimant

shall have a

rig ht of ac tion ag ainst the contra ctor a nd surety for the a mount due him or her.” Fla.

Stat. § 255.05(1)(a ).

7F e d e r a l R u l e o f E v i d e n c e 4 0 8 ( a ) e x c l u d e s e v i d e n c e o f s e t t l e m e n t

n e g o t i a t i o n s w h e n o f

f e r e d t o p r o v e “ l i a b i l i t y f o r

, i n v a l i d i t y o f

, o r a m o u n t o f a

c l a i m t h a t w a s d i s p u t e d a s t o v a l i d i t y o r a m o u n t ” o r w h e n o f f e r e d f o r c e r t a i n

i m p e a c h m e n t p u r p o s e s

. I n t r o d u c t i o n f o r o t h e r p u r p o s e s i s p e r m i s s i b l e

. F e d

. R

.

E v i d

. 4 0 8 ( b )

.

I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e

, P l a i n t i f f i n t r o d u c e d t e s t i m o n y e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t

m e d i a t i o n t o o k p l a c e a n d r e s u l t e d i n a p a y m e n t t o S o l o

. T h i s e v i d e n c e w a s

p r e s e n t e d f

o r t h e p u r p o s e o f e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t t h e p a y

- w h e n

- p a i d p r o v i s i o n i n

P l a i n t i f f ’ s o w n c o n t r a c t w i t h S o l o h a d b e e n s a t i s f i e d

. T h i s t e s t i m o n y f

a l l s w i t h i n

t h e p e r m i s s i b l e “ o t h e r p u r p o s e s ” f o r w h i c h e v i d e n c e p r o p e r l y m a y b e o f f e r e d

u n d e r R u l e 4 0 8

. D e f

e n d a n t s ’ r a i s i n g o f t h e p a y

- w h e n

- p a i d c l a u s e a s a n a f f i r m a t i v e

d e f e n s e i n v i t e d e v i d e n c e r e b u t t i n g t h a t d e f e n s e

. S e e B e a r i n t e x r e l

. B e a r i n t v

. 6

D o r e l l J u v e n i l e G r p

. , I n c

. , 3 8 9 F

. 3 d 1 3 3 9

, 1 3 4 9 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 4 ) ; M o r r o v

. C i t y o f

B i r m i n g h a m

, 1 1 7 F

. 3 d 5 0 8

, 5 1 7 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 1 9 9 7 )

. T e s t i m o n y a b o u t m e d i a t i o n

p r o c e e d i n g s w a s p e r t i n e n t t o r e b u t t i n g S o l o ’ s c l a i m t h a t i t h a d n o t r e c e i v e d

Settlement ag ree ments and re lated communica tions also may be admitted for

the 6

“purpose of re solving a

fac tual dispute about the mea ning of the settlement ag ree ments’ terms.”

Westchester Spec ialty

I ns. Servs., I nc. v. U.S. Fir e I ns. Co., 119 F.3d 1505, 1512 (11th Cir.

1997). To the e x tent Plaintiff sought to pre sent evidenc e to establish the intent behind the

settlement ag ree ment, Rule 408 does not bar its admission.

8p a y m e n t f

r o m t h e D e p a r t m e n t

. 7

I I I

. C O N C L U S I O N

N o p a r t y h a s d e m o n s t r a t e d r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r o n a p p e a l ; t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e

d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a f

f i r m e d

.

A F F I R M E D

.

We ge nera lly

apply fede ral e videntiary

rules in diversity

case s. See F lury

v. Daimler 7

Chry sler Corp., 427 F .3d 939, 944 (11th Cir. 2005). B ut state substantive law may provide

additional protec tion for evidenc e bey ond what the f eder al evidentiar

y rules provide . See, e.g

., Ung erle ider v. Gor don, 214 F.3d 1279 ( 11th Cir. 2000). But we see no e rror in the district

court’s a pplication of the F lorida Mediation Confidentiality and Privileg e Ac t and af

firm.

9