FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

OCT 8, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

 Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting *

by designation.

[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 03-13022

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 01-02059-CV-ASG

MCI WORLDCOM NETWORK SERVICES, INC., 

Plaintiff–Appellant, 

versus 

MASTEC, INC., 

Defendant–Appellee. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(October 8, 2008)

Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and SILER, Circuit Judges. *

PER CURIAM:
2

In this torts case, MCI WorldCom Network Services, Inc. sued Mastec, Inc.,

seeking compensatory, loss-of-use, and punitive damages after Mastec

inadvertently severed one of MCI’s fiber-optic cables. The district court granted

summary judgment in favor of Mastec as to MCI’s claim for loss-of-use damages. 

Faced with uncertainty regarding state law on this issue, we certified the following

two questions to the Florida Supreme Court:

IS A TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES CARRIER

ENTITLED TO DAMAGES FOR THE LOSS OF USE OF A

FIBER-OPTIC CABLE DAMAGED BY A DEFENDANT WHEN

THE CARRIER INTENDED TO HAVE THE FULL CAPACITY OF

THE DAMAGED CABLE AVAILABLE FOR ITS USE SHOULD

THE NEED HAVE ARISEN, BUT THE CARRIER WAS ABLE TO

ACCOMMODATE WITHIN ITS OWN NETWORK THE

TELECOMMUNICATIONS TRAFFIC CARRIED BY THE

DAMAGED CABLE AND THE CARRIER PRESENTED NO

EVIDENCE THAT IT SUFFERED LOSS OF REVENUE OR

OTHER DAMAGES DURING THE TIME THE CABLE WAS

UNAVAILABLE?

IF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER IS ENTITLED TO

LOSS OF USE DAMAGES, DOES THE PRE-INJURY VALUE OF

THE DAMAGED CABLE ESTABLISH A LIMIT TO THOSE

DAMAGES, OR SHOULD THE FAIR MARKET RENTAL VALUE

OF AN EQUIVALENT REPLACEMENT CABLE FOR THE TIME

REASONABLY NECESSARY TO MAKE REPAIRS SERVE AS

THE MEASURE OF LOSS OF USE DAMAGES?

MCI WorldCom Network Servs., Inc. v. Mastec, Inc., 370 F.3d 1074, 1078–79

(11th Cir. 2004).

The Florida Supreme Court modified these questions to read:
3

IS A TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES CARRIER

ENTITLED TO LOSS OF USE DAMAGES MEASURED BY THE

COST OF RENTING A REPLACEMENT FOR A FIBER-OPTIC

CABLE DAMAGED BY A DEFENDANT WHEN THE CARRIER

WAS ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE WITHIN ITS OWN

NETWORK THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TRAFFIC CARRIED

BY THE DAMAGED CABLE AND THE CARRIER PRESENTED

NO EVIDENCE THAT IT RENTED REPLACEMENT CABLE OR

SUFFERED ANY LOSS OF REVENUE OR OTHER DAMAGES

DURING THE TIME THE CABLE WAS UNAVAILABLE?

MCI WorldCom Network Servs., Inc. v. Mastec, Inc., No. SC04-948, 2008 WL

2678024, at *1 (Fla. July 10, 2008). The Florida Supreme Court then answered the

new question in the negative, holding that loss-of-use damages based on rental

replacement value is not the appropriate measure of damages when there were no

such costs incurred and the telecommunications traffic carried by the damaged

cable was accommodated within the telecommunications carrier’s own network

with no loss of service. Id. at *7.

Based on our understanding of the Florida Supreme Court’s holding in the

instant case, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of

Mastec as to MCI’s loss-of-use damages claim.

AFFIRMED.