[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

Nos. 19-13182, 19-13394

________________________

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.

________________________

Appeals 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 4
2

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, HULL and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

These appeals arise from state-law breach-of-contract claims by 

subcontractor A.T.O. Golden Construction (“ATO”) 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 verdict and post-trial motions, the district court entered final 

judgment 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 district 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 nonmoving 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 4
3

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 

presented 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 Appellants’ motions 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 for 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. Ct. 

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 4
4

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 Appellants’ 

motions 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, we affirm the district court’s denial of Appellants’ motions and 

its entry of final judgment of $125,000 and $9,729.16 in interest in favor of ATO 

and against Appellants 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 impermissible 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