Florida Construction Defect Damages: Sabga, Vuletic, and the Date of Breach

Two recent Florida appellate decisions, Bandklayder Development, LLC v. Sabga, and Vuletic Group, LLC v. Malkin, have clarified and reinforced a critical principle in Florida construction law: damages for construction defect claims must be measured as of the date of breach, not the date of the expert report or the date of trial.

The Sabga Decision: Reversing for Failure to Prove Damages as of the Date of Breach

In Bandklayder Development, LLC v. Sabga, 406 So. 3d 265 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025), the purchasers of a newly constructed home, the Sabgas, sued the developer, Bandklayder, alleging claims for breach of contract, violation of the Florida Building Code, and breach of the implied warranty of fitness. The trial court entered final judgment in favor of the Sabgas, awarding them $425,936.75 in damages. In doing so, the trial court relied on a January 2022 expert report and May 2023 trial testimony concerning the Sabgas’ cost of repair estimates. Yet neither the expert report nor the trial testimony quantified damages as of the date of breach, which occurred several years earlier in June 2017 or April 2018.

On appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and ordered entry of final judgment in favor of Bandklayder. In its decision, the Third DCA held that “the Sabgas were required to prove their damages as of the date of breach, which was in June of 2017 . . . or at the latest, April of 2018.” The court cited Grossman Holdings Ltd. v. Hourihan, 414 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 1982), for the proposition that “[d]amages for a breach of contract should be measured as of the date of the breach.” Given that the Sabgas only presented cost of repair estimates as of January 2022 and in May 2023, the court held that “the Sabgas failed to establish the proper measure of damages.”

The Vuletic Decision: Application and Affirmation of the Sabga Decision

In Vuletic Group, LLC v. Malkin, 4D2024-1589 (Fla. 4th DCA July 16, 2025), the homeowners, the Malkins, sued their contractor, Vuletic, for causing construction defects and deficiencies. At trial, the Malkins presented expert testimony based on September of 2022 cost of repair estimates, but Vuletic’s alleged breach occurred in November of 2019 when the Malkins terminated Vuletic. The trial court entered final judgment in favor of the Malkins, awarding them $414,272 in damages. Like the trial court in the Sabga decision, the trial court in Malkin relied on the September 2022 cost of repair estimates, which were not calculated as of the date of Vuletic’s alleged breach.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s award of $414,272 in damages, finding that the Malkins failed to present any evidence of cost of repair estimates as of the date of the alleged breach in November of 2019. Relying on the Sabga and Grossman decisions, the court emphasized that “[t]he homeowners ‘had a duty to prove each element of their claim, including the proper measure of damages.’” Because the Malkins failed to meet that burden, the court directed the trial court to enter judgment in favor of Vuletic.

Construction Defect Damages are Properly Measured at the Date of Breach

After Sabga and Vuletic, it is clear that construction defect damages should be measured as of the date of breach. Some commentators, however, may argue that rigid application of Sabga and Vuletic, particularly against the backdrop of homeowners’ perceived inability to repair defects without updated pricing, results in an insufficient remedy. Yet, the Third and Fourth DCAs are not persuaded. The courts have made clear that the principle first announced in Grossman will be strictly applied.

Prejudgment Interest Balances the Sabga and Vuletic Decisions

At first, the Sabga and Vuletic decisions may appear harsh. But one factor justifies their logic: prejudgment interest. Prejudgment interest is a compensatory framework that already accounts for the passage of time. Under Florida law, a prevailing plaintiff is entitled to recover interest from the date of breach, effectively compensating them for delay in payment. Prejudgment interest ensures that plaintiffs who calculate damages as of the date of breach are still made whole, even if repairs become more expensive later. Further, given the potential for recovering prejudgment interest, allowing plaintiffs to also recover their cost of repair estimates as of the date of their expert’s report or the date of trial may actually result in a windfall for Plaintiffs (assuming prejudgment interest is calculated from the date of breach). In this sense, Sabga and Vuletic got it right.

Practical Takeaways

1. Plaintiffs Must be More Diligent: Plaintiffs must marshal evidence (e.g., expert estimates, market data) showing repair costs contemporaneous with the date of breach, not the date of an expert report or trial.
2. Experts Should be Notified of the Pertinent Date: Attorneys should consult with expert witnesses to ensure that cost of repair estimates in expert reports are calculated using the appropriate date. 
3. No Second Bite at the Apple: As seen in both Sabga and Vuletic, courts are unwilling to remand for new damages trials when the failure to prove damages stems from the plaintiff’s oversight—not judicial error.