[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
OCT 8, 2008
No. 03-13022 THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 01-02059-CV-ASG
MCI WORLDCOM NETWORK SERVICES, INC.,
Plaintiff–Appellant,
versus
MASTEC, INC.,
Defendant–Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(October 8, 2008)
Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and SILER,* Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
*
Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting
by designation.
In this torts case, MCI WorldCom Network Services, Inc. sued Mastec, Inc.,
seeking compensatory, loss-of-use, and punitive damages after Mastec
inadvertently severed one of MCI’s fiber-optic cables. The district court granted
summary judgment in favor of Mastec as to MCI’s claim for loss-of-use damages.
Faced with uncertainty regarding state law on this issue, we certified the following
two questions to the Florida Supreme Court:
IS A TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES CARRIER
ENTITLED TO DAMAGES FOR THE LOSS OF USE OF A
FIBER-OPTIC CABLE DAMAGED BY A DEFENDANT WHEN
THE CARRIER INTENDED TO HAVE THE FULL CAPACITY OF
THE DAMAGED CABLE AVAILABLE FOR ITS USE SHOULD
THE NEED HAVE ARISEN, BUT THE CARRIER WAS ABLE TO
ACCOMMODATE WITHIN ITS OWN NETWORK THE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS TRAFFIC CARRIED BY THE
DAMAGED CABLE AND THE CARRIER PRESENTED NO
EVIDENCE THAT IT SUFFERED LOSS OF REVENUE OR
OTHER DAMAGES DURING THE TIME THE CABLE WAS
UNAVAILABLE?
IF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER IS ENTITLED TO
LOSS OF USE DAMAGES, DOES THE PRE-INJURY VALUE OF
THE DAMAGED CABLE ESTABLISH A LIMIT TO THOSE
DAMAGES, OR SHOULD THE FAIR MARKET RENTAL VALUE
OF AN EQUIVALENT REPLACEMENT CABLE FOR THE TIME
REASONABLY NECESSARY TO MAKE REPAIRS SERVE AS
THE MEASURE OF LOSS OF USE DAMAGES?
MCI WorldCom Network Servs., Inc. v. Mastec, Inc., 370 F.3d 1074, 1078–79
(11th Cir. 2004).
The Florida Supreme Court modified these questions to read:
2
IS A TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES CARRIER
ENTITLED TO LOSS OF USE DAMAGES MEASURED BY THE
COST OF RENTING A REPLACEMENT FOR A FIBER-OPTIC
CABLE DAMAGED BY A DEFENDANT WHEN THE CARRIER
WAS ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE WITHIN ITS OWN
NETWORK THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TRAFFIC CARRIED
BY THE DAMAGED CABLE AND THE CARRIER PRESENTED
NO EVIDENCE THAT IT RENTED REPLACEMENT CABLE OR
SUFFERED ANY LOSS OF REVENUE OR OTHER DAMAGES
DURING THE TIME THE CABLE WAS UNAVAILABLE?
MCI WorldCom Network Servs., Inc. v. Mastec, Inc., No. SC04-948, 2008 WL
2678024, at *1 (Fla. July 10, 2008). The Florida Supreme Court then answered the
new question in the negative, holding that loss-of-use damages based on rental
replacement value is not the appropriate measure of damages when there were no
such costs incurred and the telecommunications traffic carried by the damaged
cable was accommodated within the telecommunications carrier’s own network
with no loss of service. Id. at *7.
Based on our understanding of the Florida Supreme Court’s holding in the
instant case, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of
Mastec as to MCI’s loss-of-use damages claim.
AFFIRMED.
3