New Haven Wins $450K in Basanite Upstate Contract Battle

Case Background

This financial clash arose from a bitter commercial dispute surrounding the manufacture of specialized equipment for the construction industry. The core lawsuit involved Basanite Industries, LLC, a manufacturer of environmentally friendly, high-performance composite products, and Upstate Custom Products, LLC, the company contracted to build those products. The dispute escalated when a third-party, First New Haven Mortgage Company, LLC, and its affiliate, LoRicco Enterprises, LLC, also entered the legal fray.

Cause

The initial cause of action centered on a manufacturing agreement. Basanite claimed it contracted Upstate to manufacture certain machines and equipment, specifically a proprietary product known as the BasaMax™ Pultrusion Manufacturing System. Basanite asserted that although it made all required payments, Upstate failed to deliver the machines and attempted to change the terms of the Commitment for Timely Project Completion document the parties had signed in July 2022. Upstate vigorously denied these allegations and countered that Basanite, in fact, failed to make payments it owed under the agreement, thereby breaching the contract first. The third-party Defendants, collectively referred to as New Haven, became involved when they brought their own breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims against Upstate.

Injury

Both the Plaintiff and Defendant claimed to have suffered significant financial harm and business disruption due to the other side’s failure to uphold their contractual obligations. Basanite claimed injuries related to the non-delivery of critical manufacturing equipment, which stifled their production capabilities. Upstate, conversely, claimed injuries stemming from Basanite’s failure to pay for work completed, leading to substantial monetary losses. New Haven claimed injury as a result of Upstate’s failure to perform on a separate agreement, leading to financial damages.

Damages Sought

While the exact full amount of damages each party sought remains confidential, all three primary entities Basanite, Upstate, and New Haven requested the Court award them substantial monetary relief to cover the financial losses, costs, and damages they suffered as a direct result of the alleged breaches of contract and associated wrongful conduct. The jury’s final awards reflected the serious financial nature of the litigation.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

The lawsuit was heard in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Following extensive discovery and motions, the case proceeded to a jury trial in late 2025.

Legal Representation

Specific details regarding the individual counsel and expert witnesses for each party were not present in the public record verdict form but were essential throughout the trial.

Plaintiff: Basanite Industries, LLC

·       Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Chance M. Farr | William B. Darwin | E. Brown Parkinson | Allan Aaron Joseph | Christopher Mark David | Frank Charles Miranda | Jeffrey James Molinaro | Joshua Michael Salmon | Paul Gerard Finizio | Ronald Robert Hink, Jr.

Defendant: Upstate Custom Products, LLC

·       Counsel for Defendant(s): Jason E. Rosen | Fernando Jose Ulloa | Michael James Rosen

Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel

Throughout the proceedings, attorneys presented competing narratives of corporate failure and contractual missteps.

Claims Basanite brought three distinct claims against Upstate. The jury considered each one:

Breach of Contract (Basanite v. Upstate)

Basanite asserted that it fulfilled its own essential duties under the Commitment for Timely Project Completion document, but Upstate failed to deliver the products. Upstate's lawyers argued that Basanite had failed to perform its obligations first, therefore excusing Upstate’s performance. The jury agreed with the defense, concluding that Basanite did not do all or substantially all of the essential things the contract required, and that no circumstance excused Basanite’s non-performance.

Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Basanite also claimed that Upstate had violated the unwritten promise of good faith and fair dealing that exists in every contract, acting in a way that destroyed Basanite’s right to receive the benefits of the agreement. The jury considered the evidence and ultimately found that Basanite did not prove this claim.

Fraudulent Inducement

Basanite further alleged that Upstate had made a false statement regarding the contract with the intention of inducing Basanite to act on it. After hearing the testimony, the jury found that Basanite did not prove Upstate made a false statement of material fact that induced the company to enter into the agreement.

Defense and Counterclaims

Upstate not only successfully defended against all of Basanite’s claims but also brought its own successful counterclaim against Basanite, asserting that Basanite’s breach of contract caused it injury. The jury determined that Upstate did perform all or substantially all of the essential things the contract required and that Basanite did fail to do its part, thereby breaching the agreement.

New Haven’s Claims The jury also evaluated the claims brought by the third-party company, New Haven, against Upstate. New Haven asserted two separate claims:

Breach of Contract (New Haven v. Upstate)

New Haven argued that it upheld its own essential contractual duties, but Upstate failed to uphold its side of the agreement. The jury concluded that New Haven had done all or substantially all of the essential things the contract required and that Upstate did fail to perform, resulting in a breach of contract that caused harm to New Haven.

Unjust Enrichment

New Haven’s second claim stated that Upstate received a benefit from New Haven under circumstances were, in fairness, Upstate should have to pay for that benefit. The jury systematically found that New Haven proved all elements of this claim: Upstate knew of the benefit, Upstate accepted or retained the benefit, and the circumstances required Upstate to pay New Haven for the value of the benefit provided.

Jury Verdict

After considering all the evidence and testimony presented over the course of the trial, the jury reached a decisive verdict on 20th November 2025, rejecting all of Basanite Industries, LLC’s claims and finding in favor of the two remaining parties on their claims.

The jury verdict resulted in final judgment favoring Upstate Custom Products, LLC against Basanite Industries, LLC on Count I of the Second Amended Complaint, where Basanite takes nothing from Upstate. Additionally, Upstate's Amended Counterclaim Count I resulted in Upstate taking nothing from Basanite based on the jury verdict. The jury also ruled in favor of First New Haven Mortgage Company, LLC and LoRicco Enterprises, LLC against Upstate on Counts VII and IX of Upstate's Amended Counterclaim, respectively. Finally, the jury verdict granted judgment in favor of New Haven against Upstate on Count IV, awarding New Haven $450,000 plus post-judgment interest.

Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com