Smith v. Mark Coleman Construction, Inc., 594 So. 2d 812 (1992)

Facts

  • John and Sharon Smith contracted with Mark Coleman Construction, Inc. to build a home for $266,614.

  • The completed house contained multiple defects, including an undisputed “hump” in the floor spanning two second-story bedrooms.

  • The hump was visible to the naked eye and developed after roof trusses were left unsealed and exposed during construction.

  • The Smiths discovered the hump a few months before completion, but the contractor finished the home without correcting it.

  • The Smiths sued for breach of contract, and the case was tried to the court (nonjury).

  • On the hump defect, the Smiths presented testimony from:

    • An engineer regarding the nature of the defect and the difficulty of repairing it; and
    • A general contractor who testified the hump might be removable for $10,000 to $15,000, but that doing so could cause additional cracking and damage.

  • The trial court refused to allow the Smiths to present evidence of the home’s diminution in market value attributable to the hump.

  • The contractor presented testimony that the hump could be cosmetically masked through “creative flooring” methods at a cost of $3,640.

  • The trial court entered a damages award for several defects and awarded $3,640 for the hump, matching the contractor’s cosmetic-fix estimate.

  • The Smiths appealed, arguing the hump award was inadequate and that the exclusion of diminution-in-value evidence improperly limited their proof of damages.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial court’s $3,640 award for the second-story floor hump was supported by substantial competent evidence given the record evidence on the defect and feasible repair options.
  2. Whether the trial court erred by excluding the homeowners’ evidence of diminution in market value as a measure of damages for the floor hump in a construction-defect contract action.

Decision

  • The Second District Court of Appeal reversed the portion of the final judgment awarding $3,640 for the floor hump.
  • The court remanded for further proceedings to determine the proper damages for that defect.
  • The court held the hump award, based on a cosmetic masking approach, was not supported by substantial competent evidence on this record.
  • The court indicated the homeowners should not be barred from presenting a legally recognized measure of damages, including diminution in value, where the evidence shows repair is disputed, difficult, or may cause additional damage.

Legal Principles

  • A damages award after a nonjury trial must be supported by substantial competent evidence; an amount that cannot be reconciled with the evidence presented is reversible.
  • In defective-construction contract cases, the usual measure of damages is the reasonable cost to correct the defect and place the owner in the position contemplated by the contract.
  • When the evidence shows the defect cannot be reasonably corrected, or correction would be impractical or would risk disproportionate harm (economic waste concerns), diminution in market value may be an appropriate alternative measure.
  • A trial court should allow the parties to present proof on the proper measure of damages where the nature of the defect and the evidence at trial make that measure relevant.

Conclusion

Smith v. Mark Coleman Construction, Inc. holds that a trial court may not award construction-defect damages that are untethered from substantial competent evidence, and that homeowners must be allowed to prove an appropriate measure of loss—such as reasonable repair cost or, where repair is not realistically workable, diminution in value—rather than being confined to a minimal cosmetic “fix” for an obvious structural defect.