Case Name: COASTAL DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION I, INC. and Titan Indemnity Company, Appellants, v. T.P. TRUCKING & EXCAVATION, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1998-04-01
Citations: 708 So. 2d 1017
Docket Number: No. 97-2118
Parties: COASTAL DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION I, INC. and Titan Indemnity Company, Appellants, v. T.P. TRUCKING & EXCAVATION, Appellee.
Judges: KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 708
Pages: 1017–1018

Head Matter:
COASTAL DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION I, INC. and Titan Indemnity Company, Appellants, v. T.P. TRUCKING & EXCAVATION, Appellee.
No. 97-2118.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
April 1, 1998.
Clarification and Rehearing Denied May 11, 1998.
Bradford A. Thomas of Kimbrell & Ham-ann, P.A., Miami, for appellants.
W. George Allen and Virginia Stow of Law Office of W. George Allen, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

Opinion:
BROWNELL, SCOTT M., Associate Judge.
General contractor Coastal Development & Construction I, Inc. and Titan Indemnity Company (Coastal and Titan) appeal a final judgment for breach of contract in favor of T.P. and against Coastal and Titan for $47,-126.80.
Coastal and Titan claim the evidence of damages was legally insufficient to support the judgment. We agree and reverse.
At trial, the only proof of damages offered by T.P. was the unsupported opinion of T.P.'s employee as to the amount due based on a percentage of completion of the contract. This is not a permissible method to prove damages for a partially performed construction contract. See Nico Indust., Inc. v. Steel Form Contractors, Inc., 625 So.2d 1252 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); First Atl. Bldg. Corp. v. Neubauer Constr. Co., 352 So.2d 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
In claims for breach of a partially performed construction contract, such as the one at issue in this case, the measure of damages is the subcontractor's lost profit, together with the reasonable costs of labor and materials incurred in good faith in the course of parties' performance of the contract. See Nico, 625 So.2d at 1252; Brooks v. Holsombach, 525 So.2d 910, 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).
REVERSED.
KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.