Katz Deli of Aventura, Inc. v. Waterways Plaza, LLC
183 So. 3d 374
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Katz Deli of Aventura leased a 15,386 sq ft space in Waterways Plaza, then encountered roof leaks due to landlord Waterways’ alleged neglect.
- Leaks began in 2002; by May 2003 the premises were unfit for use, harming business and reputation.
- Katz sued Waterways for breach of contract and constructive eviction; paid rent through May 2003 and later moved out.
- Damages sought: lost profits or market value, plus out‑of‑pocket expenses and attorneys’ fees; market value evidence was limited.
- Trial court awarded prospective lost profits through April 2007, denied renewal-term profits, and rejected several claimed expenses; denied contingency fee multiplier.
- On appeal, Katz challenges the method and extent of damages; Waterways contends market value is proper measure and recovery should be limited.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper damages measure when business not destroyed? | Katz: lost profits appropriate due to ongoing business with depreciation | Waterways: market value at loss date governs damages | Lost profits proper here; market value insufficient under facts |
| Are renewal-term profits reasonably certain? | Katz: renewal period profits likely; rent below market supports certainty | Waterways: renewal profits too speculative | Trial court not clearly erroneous in denying renewal-term lost profits |
| Were out‑of‑pocket expenses recoverable? | Katz: expenses tied to leak should be recoverable | Waterways: not proven recoverable | Court did not allow these particular expenses |
| Was lis pendens dismissed properly? | Katz: lis pendens should preserve equitable lien | Waterways: no nexus to realty | Lis pendens properly dismissed |
| Was contingency fee multiplier appropriate? | Katz: multiplier may be necessary to obtain counsel | Waterways: no multiplier needed given liability certainty | Trial court did not abuse discretion; no multiplier |
Key Cases Cited
- Twyman v. Roell, 123 Fla. 2, 166 So. 216 (Fla. 1936) (prospective profits recoverable with a yardstick; not limited to established businesses)
- New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Utility Battery Manufacturing Co., 122 Fla. 718, 166 So. 866 (Fla. 1935) (exception for interrupted established businesses; general rule speculative)
- Lindon v. Dalton Hotel Corp., 49 So.3d 299 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (damages aim to restore but not place in better position than contract would)
- Sostchin v. Doll Enterprises, Inc., 847 So.2d 1123 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (lost profits must be reasonably certain and natural consequence of wrong)
- City of Key West v. Duck Tours Seafari, Inc., 972 So.2d 901 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (market value focus in complete destruction cases; context for loss measure)
- W.W. Gay Mechanical Contractor, Inc. v. Wharfside Two, Ltd., 545 So.2d 1348 (Fla. 1989) (yardstick suffices for measuring lost profits)
- State Rd. Dept. v. Tampa Bay Theaters, Inc., 208 So.2d 485, 486-87 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968) (renewal profits may be recoverable if reasonably certain)