[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No s . 19

- 13182 , 1 9

- 1 3 3 9 4

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:17

- cv - 24223

- KMW

A.T.O. GOLDEN CONSTRUCTION CORP., a Florida Corporation, Plaintiff

- Counter Defendant

- Appellee

- Cross Appellant,

versus
ALLIED WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign insurance corporation, Defendant

- Appellant

- Cross Appellee,

PETE VICARI GENERAL CONTRACTOR, LLC, Defendant

- Counter Claimant

- Appellant

- Cross Appellee.

________________________ Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ (December 9, 2020) USCA11 Case: 19-13182 Date Filed: 12/09/2020 Page: 1 of 42 Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge , HULL and MARCUS , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: These appeals arise from state

- law breach

- of

- contract claim s by subcontra ctor A

. T

. O. Golden Construction (“A TO”) against general contractor Pete Vicari General Contractor (“Vicari”) , and its surety, Allied World Insurance Company (“Allied”) , involving construction projects on two residential towers (the “two projects”) . After a trial, the jury returned a $ 75,000 verdict in favor of ATO
as to one tower (“Civic Tower”) and $50,000 as to the other (“Civic Tower Senior”). After the verdic t and post

- trial motions , the district court entered final judgm ent in the amount of $125,000, plus interest of $9,729.16 , in favor of ATO and against Vicari and Allied. Appellants Vicari and Allied now appeal the dist rict court’s final judgment and the denial of their motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial. Appellee ATO filed a cross

- appeal as to an evidentiary issue in the event a new trial was granted. After review of the record and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the district court’s final judgment and denial of Appellants’ motions

. I. Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law We review de novo a ruling on a motion for judgment as a matter of law, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovi ng party. Eghnayem v. Bos. Sci. Corp. , 873 F.3d 1304, 1313 (11th Cir. 2017). On appeal,

USCA11 Case: 19-13182 Date Filed: 12/09/2020 Page: 2 of 43 the Appellants do not challenge the jury charge as to damages or that ATO could sue for quantum meruit damages. Rather, Appellants contend primarily that ATO present ed no competent or legally sufficient evidence of its quantum meruit damages to support the jury’s verdict. After extensive record review , we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the A ppellants’ motion s for judgment as a matter of law

. At trial, Appellee ATO presented competent and legally sufficient evidence of its quantum meruit damages to support the jury’s verdict of $ 75 ,000 as to the Civic Tower and $50,000 as to the Civic Tower Senior. This evidence included, for example, some change orders and testimony that adequately established the reasonable value of the work, materials, and services provided by ATO as to each tower . Further, in the light most favorable to ATO, the unpaid sums fo r change orders

— without including the overhead and profit in them

— exceed the amount of the jury’s verdict as to each tower. See Emerald Pointe Prop. Owners’ Ass’n, Inc. v. Com. Constr. Indus., Inc. , 978 So. 2d 873, 879 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008) ( stating, in quantum meruit, “damages are calculated by adding the reasonable value of the labor and services rendered, as well as materials furnished ” and “ do not include profits” ) ; Puya v. Superior Pools, Spas & Waterfalls, Inc. , 902 So. 2d 973, 976 (Fla. Dist. C t. App. 2005) (stating, in quantum meruit, “the contractor’s measure of damages is

USCA11 Case: 19-13182 Date Filed: 12/09/2020 Page: 3 of 44 the reasonable value of the labor and services rendered, and materials furnished” (quotation marks omitted) )

. II. Motions for New Trial We review the denial of a motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. Collins v. Marriott Int’l, Inc. , 749 F.3d 951, 960 (11th Cir. 2014).
Here , the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the A ppellants’ motion s for a new trial because (1) the liability and damages findings were not against the weight of the evidence, and (2) the verdict was not an impermissible compromise. 1 Accordingly, w e affirm the district court’s denial of Appellants’ motion s and its entry of final judgment of $125,000 and $9,729.16 in interest in favor of ATO and against A ppell ant s Vicari and Allied

. Because we affirm the jury’s verdict and final judgment in favor of the Appellee ATO, we need not (and do not) reach the evidentiary issue raised in ATO’s conditional cross

- appeal. AFFIRMED.

1 While the verdict was initially against only Vicari and in favor of Allied , the district court subsequently determined that Allied should be added to the final judgment for a number of reasons. We reject Allied’s claim on appeal that there was an impermis sible compromise verdict. Because Allied has claimed no other error as to its inclusion in the final judgment, we need go no further.

USCA11 Case: 19-13182 Date Filed: 12/09/2020 Page: 4 of 4