in a contract de novo, while “subsidiary findings of fact” are reviewed for clear error. Dillard v. City of Greensboro, 213 F.3d 1347, 1353 (11th Cir.2000); see also Port-A-Weld, Inc. v. Padula & Wadsworth Constr., Inc., 984 So.2d 564, 568 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). PNC argues that BB & T is not entitled to recover fees for its no-damages and waiver defenses, because those defenses did not “enforce the terms of the Agreement” as the contract requires. We reject this argument. First, as the parties stipulated, damages are an element of a breach of contract claim under Florida law. Friedman v. New York Life Ins. Co., 985 So.2d 56, 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Because PNC suffered no damages, there was no breach. See Covelli Family, L.P. v. ABG5, L.L.C., 977 So.2d 749, 752 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (<HOLDING>). Thus, BB & T’s no-damages defense clearly
holding that a cause of action for breach of contract accrues at the time of the breach holding party in breach could not maintain suit for breach of contract recognizing that breach of contract cause of action accrues at time of the breach recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract holding immaterial breach did not constitute breach of contract