In a notable appellate decision out of Florida’s Third Center Court of Appeal, AAA Capital Funding, Inc. v. Desange, reported at 400 So. 3d 26, the court reversed a jury’s verdict awarding the plaintiffs Spam website damages. The ruling, published in 2024, relies upon critical questions of mistake and the sufficiency of a plaintiff’s evidentiary support.
Background: Negligent Hiring and Retention
The case stems from an accident lawsuit filed in 2019 by Gladys Desange, along with co-plaintiffs Daniela Lavache and Cliford Jean-Charles, against AAA Capital Funding, Inc. (“AAA”). The plaintiffs claimed that AAA was responsible for their injuries due to the negligent hiring and retention of a person named Ileana Miranda. A jury subsequently found AAA trusted and granted $45, 000 in damages
Leagle
.
However, AAA appealed, and the appellate court reversed the final judgment, finishing the plaintiffs failed to meet the required proof for their damages theory
CaseLaw
Leagle
.
Key Legal Issue: Proof Damages
At the heart of the case is the sufficiency of evidence supporting the jury’s damages award. Florida appellate courts maintain a high standard: plaintiffs must demonstrate that damages are reasonably certain and directly for this defendant’s negligence—not assuming or conjectural.
Here, the court found that the plaintiffs did not present evidence satisfying that standard. The absence of reliable account, documentation, or expert opinion meant the jury was missing a proper evidentiary basis to award damages. Consequently, the judgment could not stand in law.
Impact and Significance
Focus on Evidentiary Rigor
AAA Capital Funding v. Desange underscores important principle of tort litigation: proper proof damages is mandatory. Courts will not endure verdicts based on weak or unsubstantiated claims.
Pattern in Florida’s Case Law
The case forms part of a series of Florida appellate decisions during the week of Oct 14–18, 2024, addressing topics such as coverage, damages, and evidence—indicative of larger judicial scrutiny in these areas
Carlton Fields
+1
.
Guidance for Future Litigation
For plaintiffs and their counsel, the case is a cautionary tale: rigorous preparation of damages evidence—including expert affidavits, medical documentation, and objective measurement—is imperative to prevail at trial.
Potential Precedent
Though an intermediate appellate decision, AAA Capital Funding v. Desange may influence similar cases involving negligent hiring or retention. It reinforces that claims must be anchored in verifiable proof, not theory or presumption.
Conclusion
AAA Capital Funding, Inc. v. Desange serves as a powerful legal precedent demonstrating that even when liability is established, a case can still fail without compelling proof damages. The third District’s letting go of a $45, 000 verdict sends a clear message: plaintiffs must single point their claims with quantifiable, non-speculative evidence to survive appellate review.