PEDROSO v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION (2021)

Affirmed. See Gonzalez v. Barrenechea, 170 So. 3d 13, 20 n. 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (observing: “Before damages may be awarded, there must be evidence authorizing or justifying award of a definite amount”) (quoting Fla. Ventilated Awning Co. v. Dickson, 67 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 1953)) (affirming judgment where plaintiff failed to present a sufficient evidentiary predicate upon which a definite sum of damages could be awarded, and holding that, in the absence of same, any sum awarded would be pure speculation); United Steel & Strip Corp. v. Monex Corp., 310 So. 2d 339, 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) (holding: “It is incumbent upon a plaintiff in a trial court to present evidence to justify an award of damages in definite amount. Damages are recoverable only to the extent that the evidence affords a sufficient basis for estimating an amount in money with reasonable certainty”); Kennedy & Ely Ins., Inc. v. Am. Emp'rs Ins. Co., 179 So. 2d 248, 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965) (holding: “Before damages may be awarded there must be evidence authorizing or justifying the award of a definite amount, which cannot be predicated upon pure speculation”); United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Colon, 990 So. 2d 1246, 1248 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (holding: “It has long been accepted in Florida that a party claiming economic losses must produce evidence justifying a definite amount. Economic damages may not be founded on jury speculation or guesswork and must rest on some reasonable factual basis. Plaintiff has the burden of presenting evidence justifying a specific and definite amount of economic damages. Where there is no evidence to justify any amount on a claim for economic damages, defendant is entitled to judgment on the claim. Where there is no evidence to justify any amount on a claim for economic damages, defendant is entitled to judgment on the claim”) (citations omitted).

PER CURIAM.