Penton Business v. Orange County, Fl, 236 So. 3d 495

Background

Penton leased exhibit space at the Orange County Convention Center and agreed to be responsible for damage caused by Penton or its employees, agents, or guests during the lease term.
An exhibitor planned and conducted a pre-show flame-effect demonstration required before public display.
During the pre-show test, the County’s fire-safety sprinkler system activated and caused extensive water damage to the leased premises.
Penton pleaded, as an affirmative defense, that County’s damage was "created or enhanced" because County failed to shut down or disengage the sprinkler system as soon as reasonably possible (doctrine of avoidable consequences).
County moved for summary judgment on breach of lease; the trial court entered final summary judgment awarding damages to County.
On appeal, the Fifth District affirmed liability but reversed the damages award, finding genuine issues of material fact about whether County exercised ordinary and reasonable care to avoid additional damages.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Penton breached the lease and is liable to County	Penton breached by allowing activity causing damage; lease makes Penton responsible for damage by its guests/exhibitors	Liability may be limited by implied covenant running with the land and other defenses	Court affirmed liability in favor of County (but noted one aspect of trial court's implied-covenant analysis was not necessarily agreed with)
Whether County must have mitigated or avoided additional damage by promptly shutting off sprinklers	County not liable for damage from its own systems; no duty to take extraordinary measures to avoid damage	Penton argued County failed to exercise ordinary and reasonable care to disconnect sprinklers and thereby avoid additional water damage	Court held Penton’s avoidable-consequences defense was not conclusively refuted; genuine factual disputes exist, so summary judgment on damages improper
Standard of proof on summary judgment regarding affirmative defenses	County argued it met its burden to negate defenses and show no genuine issue of material fact	Penton argued County failed to disprove its affirmative defense and evidence should be viewed in Penton’s favor	Court reiterated moving party must disprove affirmative defenses; applied de novo review and found County did not conclusively disprove Penton’s defense
Proper measure of damages on summary judgment	County sought award of damages as matter of law	Penton argued damages depend on factual questions about what could reasonably have been avoided	Court reversed damages portion and remanded for further proceedings on damages because factual issues remain

Key Cases Cited

Sys. Components Corp. v. Fla. Dep’t of Transp., 14 So. 3d 967 (Fla. 2009) (doctrine of avoidable consequences limits recovery to damages reasonably avoidable through ordinary care)
Thompson v. Fla. Drum Co., 651 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (avoidable-consequences doctrine does not demand Herculean efforts)
Volusia Cty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Genuinely Loving Childcare, LLC v. Bre Mariner Conway Crossings, LLC, 209 So. 3d 622 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (summary judgment evidentiary standard; view evidence favorably to nonmoving party)
Lin v. Demings, 219 So. 3d 124 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (summary judgment improper if any genuine issue or slightest doubt exists)
Sierra v. Shevin, 767 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (evidence must be considered in light most favorable to non-moving party)
Jones v. Stoutenburgh, 91 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1956) (trial court may not weigh evidence or determine witness credibility on summary judgment)
T-Quip of Fla., Inc. v. Tietig, 207 So. 3d 958 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (moving party must disprove affirmative defenses)
Stop & Shoppe Mart, Inc. v. Mehdi, 854 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (affirmative defenses must be disproved or shown legally insufficient)