No ‘Circular Reasoning’ in Expert’s Lost Profits Calculation

BVLaw
Court Case Digests
February 1, 2017

Access the Full Article

This article is available with a subscription to any of these products:
It is also available in this product:
Already a subscriber or product owner?  Login
This article is also available for purchase. (1,460 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
3089 Plastics Products, NEC
326199 All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing
contract
damages, lost profits, daubert, expert testimony, admissibility, causation, reliability, loss period
Packgen v. Berry Plastics Corp. (II)
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1793
US
Federal Court
1st Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Mark G. Filler (plaintiff); Nancy Fannon (defendants)
Torruella

Summary

Appeals court upholds lost profits award, finding expert’s damages model was admissible under Daubert; market survey was only one of “competing principles or methods” to gather facts on sales, and failure to use it does not make opinion per se unreliable.

See Also

Packgen v. Berry Plastics Corp. (II)

Full Text of Court Cases
February 1, 2017

Appeals court upholds lost profits award, finding expert’s damages model was admissible under Daubert; market survey was only one of “competing principles or methods” to gather facts on sales, and failure to use it does not make opinion per se unreliable.

No ‘Circular Reasoning’ in Expert’s Lost Profits Calculation

BVLaw Case Update
May 2017

Appeals court upholds lost profits award, finding expert’s damages model was admissible under Daubert; market survey was only one of “competing principles or methods” to gather facts on sales, and failure to use it does not make opinion per se unreliable.

This article also appears in:
The Comprehensive Guide to Economic Damages, Seventh Edition