Yacht Broker Wins $806K Verdict Against Baglietto, Naftali
Table of Contents
Case Background
In 2019, Scott Goldsworthy, a yacht broker, sued Italian yacht builder Baglietto S.P.A. and businessman Miki Naftali. He claimed he was the procuring cause for the sale of a custom yacht called the Club‑M. According to the complaint, Goldsworthy worked closely with Naftali and Baglietto for roughly two years. He introduced naval architects, interior designers, and shipyards for consideration. He claimed both parties promised him a 5% commission if the sale went through.
Goldsworthy argued that he worked on the design, pricing, and bidding process, and acted as the broker for the new build. The parties ultimately selected Baglietto to build the yacht, and the deal was signed in early 2018. But when the contract was signed, both Naftali and Baglietto left him out. They refused to pay the promised commission, citing that it was not included in the final agreement. Goldsworthy sued, claiming breach of oral contract, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment.
The cause that led to the dispute
Goldsworthy claimed he was the procuring cause of the sale. He stated he introduced Naftali and Baglietto and facilitated meetings, negotiations, and design discussions. According to him, this was the very work a yacht broker was supposed to be paid for. Yet, despite these efforts, the Defendants refused to honour their agreement.
Injury
Goldsworthy claimed that he suffered a financial loss because he never received the commission he earned. The total amount he sought was approximately 5% of the gross sale price, roughly estimated at $725,000 at the time of the complaint.
Damages
The jury determined that Goldsworthy suffered total damages of $806,067.54 for his role in bringing the sale to fruition. This figure reflected the commission he was promised, adjusted for the sale price and confirmed by the evidence presented.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The case lasted several years. The Plaintiff argued he acted as the broker and earned a commission based on industry practice and oral agreement. He presented evidence of meetings, emails, and ongoing involvement in the transaction. According to the Plaintiff, both Defendants acted in bad faith by intentionally excluding him from the final contract.
Baglietto and Naftali denied any agreement existed. They argued that Goldsworthy acted as an advisor or consultant and had no binding agreement for a commission. In their answer and affirmative defenses, Baglietto stated that it relied on representations from Naftali and his company, Club‑M, that any broker commissions would be paid by Naftali himself. They argued that if any commission was owed, it was Naftali’s responsibility.
Baglietto also filed a cross claim against Naftali and Club‑M, seeking indemnification for any judgment it might owe Goldsworthy.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Scott Goldsworthy
· Counsel for Plaintiff: Joshua B. Alper | Aiman Farooq
Defendant: Baglietto S.P.A.| Miki Naftali
· Counsel for Defendant: Serena A. Witter | Umberto Bonavita |Stephen J. Binhak |Aaron Lauchheimer
Claims Asserted
Procuring Cause
Goldsworthy argued he was the direct link between Naftali and Baglietto. He stated he introduced the parties and participated in meetings and negotiations.
Breach of Oral Agreement
Goldsworthy claimed that both Naftali and Baglietto promised him a 5% commission and later refused to pay.
Breach of Implied‑in‑Fact Contract
Goldsworthy alleged that through their conduct, Naftali and Baglietto acted as if an agreement existed, making their later refusal to pay a breach.
Unjust Enrichment
Goldsworthy claimed both Defendants benefited from his efforts and refused to compensate him for the value he created.
Promissory Estoppel
He argued that both parties made promises about the commission, upon which he reasonably relied.
Defense Arguments
Naftali claimed he had no binding agreement to pay Goldsworthy a commission. He asserted that any obligation would have been the responsibility of his entity, Club‑M. Baglietto argued that its agreement was with Naftali and that any commission due was Naftali’s responsibility. The company stated it acted in reliance on Naftali’s agreement to cover any broker’s claim.
Both Defendants denied that any enforceable contract existed between themselves and Goldsworthy.
Jury Verdict
On May 9, 2025, after a long trial in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Broward County, Florida, a jury sided with Scott Goldsworthy in his commission dispute against Baglietto S.P.A. and Miki Naftali. The jury found that Goldsworthy was the procuring cause of the sale and played a critical role in introducing Naftali to the Italian yacht builder, advising on design, and facilitating negotiations. The jury ruled that Baglietto was liable for breach of an implied‑in‑fact contract as well as an implied‑in‑law contract. In its verdict, the jury awarded Goldsworthy $806,067.54 for the commission he earned.
Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com