TLO SOUTH FARMS, INC. v. HEARTLAND FARMS, INC., 282 So.3d 145

TLO South Farms (beekeeper) contracted to provide pollination services to Heartland Farms; TLO alleged Heartland (and its president Moye) failed to pay $4,500 and sprayed toxic pesticides that killed TLO's bee colonies.
TLO sued for breach of contract, negligence, and under FDUTPA (Count V), alleging Moye sprayed without consent, violated label requirements, and engaged in unconscionable/unfair/deceptive trade practices causing damages.
At trial the jury awarded $4,500 for breach of contract, apportioned negligence damages ($67,500 total, with Heartland/Padgett 35% and TLO 30%), and awarded $72,000 on the FDUTPA claim against Moye.
Defendants moved for directed verdicts at trial, principally challenging standing, that FDUTPA cannot be based on mere contract breach, and causation; they did not directly challenge the sufficiency of evidence on FDUTPA's deceptive/unconscionable-act element.
After verdict, defendants moved to set aside the FDUTPA verdict (or alternatively for a new trial), arguing lack of deceptive acts, jury sympathy, and double-counting of damages; the trial court granted judgment in defendants' favor on Count V as newly asserting lack of evidence of unconscionable/deceptive acts and alternatively granted a new trial.
The Second District reversed: the trial court erred in granting JNOV based on a ground not raised in the directed‑verdict motion, and abused its discretion in conditionally granting a new trial; the FDUTPA verdict was reinstated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court could enter judgment in accordance with a directed verdict based on a ground not raised at trial	TLO: defendants never challenged the FDUTPA deceptive/unconscionable‑act element at directed‑verdict stage, so posttrial JNOV on that ground is improper	Defs: they "reasserted" earlier arguments and renewed motion covered trade‑practices sufficiency	Court: Reversed — cannot base JNOV on a new ground not asserted in the trial‑period directed‑verdict motion (violates Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.480(b) and precedent)
Whether alternative new trial on FDUTPA count was proper (manifest weight / inconsistent verdict)	TLO: defendants waived inconsistency challenge by not objecting before jury discharge; record supports FDUTPA verdict; court's stated reasons unsupported	Defs: verdict was against manifest weight, inconsistent with negligence verdict, and reflected sympathy/double counting	Court: Reversed — inconsistency objection waived; trial court abused discretion on manifest‑weight ground because record supported jury's FDUTPA finding; new trial improperly granted

Houghton v. Bond, 680 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (party must assert grounds at directed‑verdict stage before seeking judgment in accordance afterward)
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Gonzalez, 619 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (same principle on JNOV/Judgment in accordance)
Rollins, Inc. v. Butland, 951 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (elements of a FDUTPA claim: deceptive/unfair act, causation, actual damages)
Keene Bros. Trucking, Inc. v. Pennell, 614 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 1993) (trial courts may grant JNOV and alternatively order a conditional new trial)
Coba v. Tricam Indus., Inc., 164 So. 3d 637 (Fla. 2015) (party must object to inconsistent jury verdicts before jury discharge or waive the challenge)
Meyers v. Shontz, 251 So. 3d 992 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (standard of review and limitations on trial court's discretion to grant new trial for manifest weight)
Jones v. Stevenson, 598 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (jury verdict is contrary to manifest weight only when evidence is clear, obvious, and indisputable)