FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T MARCH 8 , 201 1 J OHN LEY CLERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 68 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 6- cv -2 13 15 -CM A HUDSON MARINE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us THOMAS MILLER (M IAMI) , INC., THOMAS MILLER P& L LTD. , Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 68 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 6- cv -2 13 15 -CM AHUDSON MARINE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us THOMAS MILLER (M IAMI) , INC., THOMAS MILLER P& L LTD. , Defen da nt s- App el la nt s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ma rch 8, 2 01 1) Befo re HULL, MARTIN, andFAY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Hud so n M ari ne Man ag em en t Se rv ic es , Inc . (“ Hud so n M ari ne ”) ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s en try of jud gm en t ag ai ns t i t o n i ts bre ach of c on tra ctcla im ag ai ns t Tho m as Mi ll er (M ia m i), In c. an d Th om as Mi ll er P& L Ltd . (co ll ect iv el y “ Mi ll er”) fo r no t p ay in g fo r th e fu ll va lu e o f th e work Hu ds on Mari ne pe rfo rm ed . Mil le r 2cro ss -ap pe al s t he en try of jud gm en t ag ai ns t i t o n i ts co un te rcl ai m forov erp aym en t. Inth e co nt ractbe twee n t he pa rti es , Hud so n M ari ne ag reedto res to re an d re pa ir a m ari ne habi ta t af

te r a v es se l d am ag eda co ral reef off th e co as t o f Fl or id a. See Se a Byte , Inc . v. Hud so n M ari ne Mg m t. Se rv s., In c., 56 5 F .3d12 93 , 12 96 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Hud so n M ari ne subc on tra ct edwith S ea Byte, In c. (“ Sea B yte ”) t o p erfo rm th e res to rat io n wo rk . Id. Mu lt ip le hu rri can es hi t t he areaaft er re st or at io n wo rk 1 be ga n, d is rupt in g t he pro ject andul ti m at el y

cau si ng itto ceas e. Id . at 1 29 7. InHud so n M ari ne ’s in it ia l ap pe al , th is Co urt re m an de d fo r th e d is tri ctco urt to cal cu la te th e p art ie s’ dam ag es , by de te rm in in g wh atpe rcen ta ge of t he co nt ract ’s va lu e Hud so n M ari ne ha d p erfo rm edbe fo re the hu rri can es hi t an d m ul ti pl y in g t ha t pe rcen ta ge by the to ta l co nt ractpri ce o f $5 ,20 0,0 00 . See SeaByte , Inc ., 56 5 F .3d at13 01 –0 3. On re m an d, t he di st ric t co urt en te redjud gm en t d en y in g b ot h p art ie s an y reco ve ry forHud so n M ari ne ’s pre -h urric an e work b ecau se th ey fai le d t o es tabl is h t he am ou ntof d am ag es to whi ch th ey were en ti tl edby a reas on ab le de gr ee o f certa in ty. Afte r th or ou gh rev ie w, we affi rm . I.

Sea B y te was a party to the suit before the district court but settled its claims ag ainst 1 Miller, and is there fore not a par ty to this appeal.

3“ ‘W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs when si tt in g wi th ou t a ju ry in adm ira lt y un de r th e cl earl y

erro ne ou s s ta nd ard . W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s co nc lu si on s o f la w de n ov o.’” Sea Byte, In c., 56 5 F .3dat 1 29 8 (q uo ti ng Venu s Lin es Agen cy , Inc . v. CVG In t’l Am ., Inc ., 23 4 F .3d12 25 , 12 28 (11 th Cir . 20 00 )).

“ ‘Afin di ng of f

actis cle arl y

erro ne ou s wh enth e en ti ret y of t he ev id en ce l ead s t he rev ie win g c ou rt t o ade fin it e an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th ata m is ta ke ha s b een co m m it te d.’” Id. (quo ti ng Dres dn er Ba nkAG v. M/ V Olym pi a Voyage r, 44 6 F .3d 13 77 , 13 80 (11 th Cir . 20 06 )). Bo th pa rti es arg ue th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredby requ iri ng ex pe rt t es ti m on y on th e is su e o f da m ag es . The Fed eral Ru le s o f Evi de nc e p ro vi de th at“ [i]f sc ie nt ifi c, te ch ni cal , or o th er s pe ci al iz edkn owl ed ge wil l as si stth e tr ie r of factto un de rs ta ndth e ev id en ce o r to de te rm in e a fac t i n i ss ue , a witne ss qu al ifi edas a n ex pe rt . . . maytes ti fy

th eret o.” Fed . R. Evi d. 7 02 (em ph as is ad de d) . Rul e 7 02 an d o urpre ced en t m ak e cl ear t ha t “ th ere i s n o ru le requi rin g e xp erttes ti m on y on cert ai n i ss ue s.” Wors ha m v. A.H. Rob in s C o., 7 34 F.2d67 6, 6 85 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ). The re ar e o nl y

a li m it ednu m

be r of “ cas es in whi ch [th e] case wou ldfai l wi th ou t ex pe rt t es ti m on y

be cau se th e te ch ni cal an d s ci en ti fic asp ect s o f th e cas e wou ld res ul t i n a[fi nd er o f fac t’s] in ab il it y to co m pr eh en d t he is su es .” Id . Ind eed , th e

4pa rti cu la r “ cau se s o f act io n i n wh ic h t he law p red ic at es reco ve ry up onex pe rt te st im on y ,” su chas m ed ic al m al pr act ic e, are r are. Id . Thu s, we ag ree wi th th e p art ie s t ha t h adth e d is tri ctco urt re qu ire d e xp ert te st im on y on dam ag es , itwou ldha ve erred . Butaft er ca refu l re vi ew, we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t re qu ire ex pe rt t es ti m on y in th is cas e. The d is tri ct co urt s ta te d i ts fin di ng s an d c on cl us io ns on th e rec or d, p ur su an t t o F ed eral Ru le of Ci vi l Pr oc edur e 5 2, i ns te adof m em or ia li zi ng th em in a writ te n o pi ni on . Dur in g th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng , th e co urt m en ti on edth atex pe rt t es ti m on y wou ldha ve be enhe lp fu l i n t he cas e. It d oe s n otap pe ar, h owe ve r, th atth e d is tri ctco urt reject edth e p art ie s’ evi de nc e o n t he ba si s t ha t the y fai le d t o p ro vi de ex pe rt te st im on y . In st ead , th e d is tri ctco urt re jecte d t he pa rti es ’ ev id en ce p rimaril y be cau se it was sp ecu la ti ve . W e n ex t co ns id er wh ethe r th e d is tri ctco urt erredin reject in g t he pa rti es ’ ev id en ce o n t ha t b as is . II. Hud so n M ari ne arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt erro ne ou sl y fou ndth atit s ev id en ce o f da m ag es was s pe cu la ti ve an d n otba se d o n areas on ab le de gr ee o f cert ai nt y . Fl or id a la w requi res cert ai nt y of d am ag es in a co nt ractact io n. Se e

5Sh ari ckv. Se . Uni v. Hea lt h S ci s., In c., 78 0 S o. 2 d 1 36 , 14 0 (F la . 3dDCA 20 00 ).

Dam ag es can no t b e “ rem ot e” o r “ co njec tu ral an d s pe cu la ti ve .” Id . On re m an d, we h adin st ru ct edth e d is tri ctco urt t o “ de te rm in e wha t pe rcen ta ge of the pro

ject’s v al ue Hud so n [M ari ne ] pr ov id edun de r th e co nt ractof Sep te m be r 2, a ndm

ul ti pl y th atpe rcen ta ge by the co ntractpri ce o f $5 ,20 0,0 00 .” Sea B yte , Inc ., 56 5 F .3dat 1 30 1 (e m ph as is ad de d) . W e ex pl ai ne d tha t t he pro pe r m eas ur e o f th e “ va lu e” o f th e work p erfo rm edis no t s im pl y th e am ou ntof t im e sp en t o n t he pro

ject b efo re the hu rri can e. Id . at 1 30 2. Ra th er, we n ot edth atth e va lu e o f th e co m

pl et edworkm

us t t ak e in to acco un t t he di ffer en t “ ki nd s o f labo r, equi pm en t, an d s ki ll s” requi redforth e work p erfo rm eddu rin g t ha t p eri od . Id. The di stric t co urt d idno t err in fin di ng th atth e p art ie s fa il edto est ab li sh th e

“ va lu e” o f th e work Hu ds on co m pl et edbe fo re the hu rri can e to a reas on ab le de gr ee of cert ai nt y . Mil le r m erel y cal cu la te d t he nu m

be r of da y s i nv ol ve d a ndask edth e co urt t o a ss es s v al ue ba se d s ol el y on ti m e an d t he pe rcen ta ge of t he workth atha d be enco m pl et ed . W e ex pl ai ne d o n re m an d t ha t i n t hi s ca se “ th e ci rcu m st an ces requi re a s li gh tl y

di ffer en t ap pr oa ch ” th anm ul ti pl y in g the to ta l v al ue of t he pr ojec t b y

th e p erce nt ag e o f th e p ro ject c om pl et ed . Sea Byte, In c., 56 5 F .3d13 02 . Nordi d Hu ds on Mari ne pro vi de an y su ffi ci en t ev id en ce atth e ev id en ti ary he ari ng of th e “ va lu e” o f th e work i t p erfo rm ed . Rath er, Hu ds on Mari ne pro po se d 6m

ul ti pl e, co m

pe ti ng form

ul as an d a sk edth e d is tri ctco urt t o c ho os e am on g t he m in cal cu la ti ng it s d am ag es . W e h ol d t ha t t he di st ric t co urt d idno t err by con cl ud in g t ha t n ei th er p arty ha d e st ab li sh edsu ffi ci en t ev id en ce o f th e “ va lu e” o f th e work Hu ds on Mari ne pe rfo rm edto th e d eg ree o f certa in ty requ ire d u nd er Fl or id a la w. W e th eref or e AFFIR M the di st ric t co urt’s en try of jud gm en t i n fa vo r of Mi ll er o n Hu ds on Mar in e’s br each of c on tra ctcla im an d i n fa vo r of

Hud so n M ari ne on Mi ll er’s co nt ractcla im

forov erp aym en t.

AFFIR MED.

7