Subsea Wins Contract Dispute; Jury Awards $286K Verdict

Case Background

This legal action involved a high-stakes disagreement between two corporations concerning a specialized maritime contract. Subsea Marine Services, Inc. (SUBSEA), a Florida corporation, sued Sint Maarten International Telecommunications Services, Inc. (SMITCOMS), a Delaware corporation, over a failure to perform and pay for the repair of a crucial underwater fiber optic cable. The case centered on the legal responsibilities both parties assumed under a detailed Subsea Cable Repair Agreement.

Cause

The core of the dispute was the Subsea Cable Repair Agreement. Both parties accused the other of failing to live up to their promises, leading to a breakdown in the project and subsequent financial losses.

Breach of Contract (SUBSEA's Claim)

SUBSEA, as the party providing the repair services, claimed that SMITCOMS, the cable owner, had breached the contract. SUBSEA alleged that it had fulfilled its duties, but SMITCOMS had failed to make the required payments or meet other contractual obligations, thereby causing SUBSEA significant financial harm.

Unjust Enrichment (SUBSEA's Alternative Claim)

As an alternative, SUBSEA also filed a claim for Unjust Enrichment. This legal claim argued that even if the contract was somehow invalid or unenforceable, SMITCOMS had received a benefit from SUBSEA’s work without justly paying for it, making it unfair for SMITCOMS to keep that benefit.

Breach of Contract (SMITCOMS's Counterclaim)

In turn, SMITCOMS filed a counterclaim, asserting that it was actually SUBSEA that had breached the contract. SMITCOMS maintained that the repair work SUBSEA performed, or failed to perform, had not met the agreed-upon standards or timeliness, resulting in financial loss for the telecommunications company.

Injury

The injuries claimed by both sides were entirely financial. SUBSEA claimed it suffered losses from the costs it incurred while attempting to repair the damaged cable, including mobilization fees and labor, which SMITCOMS never paid. Conversely, SMITCOMS claimed it suffered damages related to the breach of contract and the ongoing disruption to its telecommunications network due to the unsatisfactory or incomplete repair work.

Damages Sought

Each party sought substantial monetary recovery from the other, covering economic damages and legal costs. The claims included demands for:

• Contract Damages: The specific dollar amount each party believed it was owed as a direct result of the other party's breach of the repair agreement.

• Mitigation of Damages: The Court required the jury to consider whether either party could have, with reasonable effort, avoided some of the claimed losses.

• Attorney's Fees and Costs: Both sides sought reimbursement for the considerable expenses associated with this federal litigation.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

The commercial dispute required a jury to meticulously review complex facts, contract clauses, and the sequence of events related to the repair efforts.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff(s) / Counter-Defendant: Subsea Marine Services, Inc.

·       Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Tim B. Wright | Paul J. Parton

Defendant(s) / Counterclaimant: Sint Maarten International Telecommunications Services, Inc. A/K/A Smitcoms, Inc.

·       Counsel for Defendant(s): Harout J. Samra | Jacabed Rodriguez-Coss | Janelly Crespo

Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel

The trial involved intense scrutiny of the contractual provisions, the quality of the repair work, and the payment schedule.

Claims

SUBSEA's counsel argued that the company mobilized its resources, including specialized personnel and equipment, and performed its contractual duties to repair the cable. They asserted that SMITCOMS unjustly withheld payment after receiving the benefit of the service, violating the financial terms of the agreement.

Defense

SMITCOMS's counsel asserted multiple affirmative defenses against SUBSEA's claims. They maintained that the contract required specific performance that SUBSEA never successfully completed. Furthermore, they denied having breached the agreement. The defense raised legal arguments that included:

• Nonperformance of Contract: SMITCOMS claimed SUBSEA failed to complete the required work.

• Failure to Comply with Conditions Precedent: The defense argued that SUBSEA did not satisfy all necessary prerequisites before demanding payment.

• Estoppel, Waiver, and Unclean Hands: These technical defenses suggested that SUBSEA’s past conduct or representations prevented it from enforcing the contract terms now.

Jury Verdict

On November 3, 2025, a jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Fort Pierce Division, unanimously returned a verdict in Case No. 24-14016-CIV-CANNON between Subsea Marine Services, Inc. (Plaintiff) and Sint Maarten International Telecommunications Services, Inc. a/k/a SMITCOMS, Inc. (Defendant). The jury found in favor of SUBSEA on all claims, determining that SMITCOMS breached the Subsea Cable Repair Agreement and failed to perform its contractual obligations, resulting in damages of $286,250.00 to SUBSEA with no amount that could have been avoided through reasonable efforts. Additionally, the jury found that SMITCOMS was unjustly enriched and awarded SUBSEA $3,900.00 representing the value of benefits provided. The jury rejected all of SMITCOMS's affirmative defenses including non-performance of contract, estoppel, waiver, and unclean hands. Furthermore, the jury found against SMITCOMS on its counterclaim for breach of contract, determining that SUBSEA did not breach the contract and therefore awarding no damages to SMITCOMS.

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