307 So.3d 773
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2020Background
- Frazer, a salesperson in Merle Wood & Associates, Inc. (MWA)’s production/custom-yacht division, pursued a purchaser interested in buying a superyacht called Secret.
- MWA policy required permission from principal Merle Wood to solicit superyachts; Frazer arranged a brief meeting between Wood and the purchaser and continued soliciting the purchaser after Wood’s approval.
- Frazer was terminated in May 2010; shortly thereafter MWA’s newly hired superyacht manager (who had a prior relationship with the purchaser and prior involvement with Secret) negotiated and closed the sale, generating a >$1 million commission.
- Frazer sued MWA for breach of an oral commission agreement and unjust enrichment; jury found for MWA on breach but awarded Frazer unjust enrichment damages (initially $300,000, later retried and reduced to $184,863.60).
- At the damages retrial Frazer relied on accountant Carl Fedde’s testimony about possible commission splits, but Fedde did not quantify any dollar value attributable to Frazer’s services or tie his figures to an amount MWA was unjustly enriched.
- The Fourth District reversed, holding Frazer failed to present competent, substantial evidence of measurable unjust enrichment damages and directed the trial court to enter judgment for MWA.
Issues
| Issue | Frazer's Argument | MWA's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there competent substantial evidence to support unjust enrichment damages? | Frazer argued his introduction and persistent solicitation of the purchaser conferred a benefit; Fedde’s commission-split figures supplied a basis and the jury could allocate value. | MWA argued no evidence quantified the value of any benefit Frazer conferred; Fedde did not apportion or compute Frazer’s share, so any award was speculative. | Reversed: No competent substantial evidence of quantifiable unjust enrichment; judgment for MWA. |
| Could full-commission or commission-split figures serve as a reliable measure of Frazer’s entitlement? | Frazer contended commissions reflect the value of salesperson services and jury could determine allocation. | MWA argued Frazer never had a right to the house commission or full commission and Fedde’s figures never tied Frazer to a measurable share. | Held: Commission figures without a fact-based allocation are insufficient to measure unjust enrichment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alvarez v. All Star Boxing, Inc., 258 So. 3d 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (reversing unjust enrichment award where expert failed to connect earnings to claimant's services)
- United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Colon, 990 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (economic damages must be measurable and supported by evidence)
- Swindell v. Crowson, 712 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (damages cannot be based on speculation or guesswork)
- Am. Safety Ins. Serv., Inc. v. Griggs, 959 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (unjust enrichment award reversed where plaintiffs only proved hoped-for profits, not value conferred)
- Fina v. Hennarichs, 19 So. 3d 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (directed verdict denials reviewed de novo)
- Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Barbanell, 100 So. 3d 152 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (judgment following directed verdict reviewed de novo)