The Comprehensive Guide to Economic Damages, Seventh Edition
Welcome to The Comprehensive Guide To Economic Damages, 7th Edition. This publication is about financial evidence: how to gather it, interpret it, and tell its story in a lawsuit or litigation setting.
The guide includes representational analysis as well as digests and full text of case law on financial damages. Here you are able to search related case law via case type, court, state/jurisdiction and more. Begin your research now.
Already purchased the guide? Login to access its case law content.
Search Featured Cases
LCT Capital, LLC v. NGL Energy Partners LP
In this ongoing case regarding investment banking services and fees, the court ruled on various motions of the parties to exclude certain testimony from two expert witnesses, one from each side, and to exclude certain evidence to be presented by those witnesses. The court denied the plaintiff’s motions but granted the defendant’s motions.
Dentists Ins. Co. v. Yousefian
Plaintiff’s Expert Waives Work Product Protection
The plaintiff insurance company in this damages case waived work product protection when the plaintiff’s expert disclosed alleged “secret” information to the defendant’s expert. The court required disclosure.
WL All. LLC v. Precision Testing Grp. Inc.
U.S. Appellate Court Rules Sufficient Evidence to Support Future Damages
In this partnership dispute, the 11th Circuit U.S. Appellate Court affirmed the district court and ruled that trial testimony of witnesses provided specific evidence that an energy utility company needed technicians the partnership provided before the disassociation and was not likely to change in the future. Damages were deemed “reasonably certain.” The defendants’ argument that, without an equitable accounting, the damages were too speculative, was waived because it was first raised post-verdict.
In re Navidea Biopharmaceuticals Litig.
U.S. District Court Partially Excludes Witness in Securities Value Case and Allows Rebuttal Witness
A pharmaceuticals company sued its former CEO for, among other things, breach of contract and for a declaratory judgment establishing the contractual rights and obligations of the parties. This resulted in counterclaims by the former CEO, Michael Goldberg. Goldberg submitted for testimony of damages Terry Lee Orr, CPA. In this matter, the company sought to exclude Orr’s testimony and, absent his exclusion, to present their own expert, William F. Murray, CPA, as a rebuttal expert. Goldberg sought to exclude the testimony of Murray. The court excluded portions of Orr’s testimony and denied the exclusion of Murray as a rebuttal expert.
Zamfir v. CasperLabs, LLC
The defendant, CasperLabs LLC, in this trademark dispute in U.S. District Court (California) moved for dismissal of eight causes of action from the plaintiff Vlad Zamfir’s (Zamfir) second amended complaint. The actions dealt primarily with trademark infringement and alleged damages therefrom. The actions also included allegations of fraud and misrepresentation under California law. After analysis of each of the actions, the court granted dismissal of some of the actions and denied dismissal of some of the actions.
Furrer v. Siegel & Rouhana, LLC
A name attorney in a Maryland law firm withdrew after having his license suspended. He sued the firm for compensation for his 26.5% interest in the firm. The firm countersued for damages related to his mistreatment of client accounts. The trial court determined a value of his interest and also determined damages that the attorney owed the firm for his mistreatment of client accounts. The appellate court affirmed the damages but remanded the valuation of the 26.5% interest.
Manbro Energy Corp. v. Chatterjee Advisors, LLC
U.S. District Court (New York) Denies Motion to Exclude Expert Witness
The primary focus of this case was cross-motions for summary judgment on issues dealing with fiduciary duty and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. A final issue, of importance to valuation experts, was a motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff’s valuation expert, which the court denied.
Boesch v. Holeman (II)
This case revolved around the value to be paid for a one-third interest in a business partnership for a business that produces and sells flavored “moonshine” liquor. The trial court initially resolved all issues and determined that the plaintiff was entitled to the fair value of his one-third interest in the partnership. Defendant appealed, among other things, the trial court determination of value for his interest. The appellate court remanded for elimination of the discount for lack of control. On this appeal, the plaintiff disagreed with the trial court value and believed the DLOM should also be eliminated. The appellate court affirmed the trial court. The value affirmed was a conclusion of value issued in a summary report.
Redcell Corp. v. A.J. Trucco, Inc.
Parties' Motions to Exclude Each Other’s Experts Are Granted in Part and Denied in Part
In this trade secrets and breach of contract case, portions of each expert’s testimony were found to be offering a factual narrative that is within the purview of a lay jury to ascertain. Those portions of testimony were excluded for both experts, but the parties’ arguments as to the qualifications of the experts and supposed reliance of an expert on the work of another were denied.
Agnelli v. Lennox Miami Corp.
In this lengthy opinion dealing with the fair value of a 12.5% interest the plaintiff held in a Florida hotel holding corporation, the U.S. District Court determined that discounts for minority interest and for marketability are not allowed. The court also determined damages for the breach of contract, or, in the alternative, breach of fiduciary duty, on the part of the plaintiff.
Total Quality Logistics, LLC v. Tucker, Albin and Assocs.
An Ohio appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of a permanent injunction to the plaintiff because the evidence did not show that it faced immediate and irreparable injury or harm. It was also held that the trial court properly dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for tortious interference because the plaintiff did not allege that the defendant induced a third party not to continue to do business with the plaintiff.
Therapeutics MD, Inc. v. Evofem Biosciences, Inc.
In this trademark infringement case before a U.S. magistrate judge, the magistrate recommended to the District Court whether certain experts should be allowed to testify. The recommendations were for granting or denying motions of both parties to exclude testimony of the other party’s experts. The magistrate reviewed not only the qualifications of each of the experts, but also the subject of their testimony and opinions and whether they are appropriate and helpful to the court in resolving the issues. In the end, the magistrate recommended to deny the plaintiff’s motion to exclude the defendant’s experts and the defendant’s motion to exclude the plaintiff’s experts be granted in part and denied in part.
Auto Konnect, LLC v BMW of North America, LLC
The U.S. District Court (Michigan) denied motions to exclude the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s expert witnesses and granted motions from both parties to exclude “expert” testimony from lay witnesses. The case involved alleged breach of contract on the part of the defendants regarding raiding of the plaintiff’s employees, and damages related thereto.
Bougie v. Garth-Niggeman
Trial Court’s Denial of Permanent Injunctive Relief for Irreparable Harm Is Upheld
The case originated at trial court on issues of the buyout of a deceased member’s interest in an LLC restaurant. Among the issues was the use of the LLC’s recipes by the acquirer of the deceased’s interest in violation of the operating agreement. The two remaining LLC members claimed the use of the LLC’s recipes in other restaurants irreparably harmed them. However, the remaining members did not seek, nor did they prove, any damages resulting from the use of the recipes. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of a permanent injunction against the use of the recipes.
Sherman v. Sherrod
In this primarily procedural ruling, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed judgment from a lower court awarding damages, including goodwill, for breach of contract arising from a sale of a medical practice, including goodwill. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants’ failure to comply with the transfer assistant clauses in the sale contract destroyed the practice goodwill, among other things.
HMH Enters. v. TAG Enters.
Court Affirms Exclusion of Testimony From Witness as Being Based on Inadmissible Hearsay Evidence
The plaintiffs contended that the trial court erred in granting two defendants motions in limine to exclude evidence of the plaintiffs’ damages. The appellate court affirmed the decisions of the trial court.
Dettenhaim Farms, Inc. v. Greenpoint Ag, LLC
In this case alleging damages to a soybean crop, a Louisiana court of appeals determined that the trial court abused its discretion when it chose an expert's methodology for calculating damages, as another methodology was supported by the record and was not overly speculative; a reduced damage award was appropriate. The trial court affirmed two other issues regarding evidence of cause of damages and the issue of standing as to who owned the land and thus the crops.
V5 Techs., LLC v. Switch, Ltd.
This case was a motion to reconsider the court’s ruling that struck expert testimony because the expert used the discounted cash flow method to determine the value of a business that went out of business. Upon reconsideration, the court decided that such method was allowable in this case and, therefore, the testimony should be reinstated and presented to the jury for use in determining damages.
SL EC, LLC v. Ashley Energy, LLC
Court Denies Motion to Exclude Rebuttal Testimony of Damages
This case concerned the purchase of a historic steam plant in downtown St. Louis. The claims included breach of contract, fraudulent conveyance, and tortious interference, among others. This particular case dealt with a motion in limine to exclude rebuttal testimony from the expert for the counterclaim defendants regarding damages put forth by the counterclaim plaintiffs. The court denied the motion.
Derek Scott Williams PLLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court declined to grant a motion to dismiss the claim of plaintiff as to coverage for loss of business income but does dismiss the claim of coverage under the civil authority provision of the policy. The court found the wording of the policy sufficiently vague, especially as to the meaning and definition of the word “loss.” In the case of the civil authority provision of the policy, the court decided that plaintiff has not alleged that “[a]ccess to the area immediately surrounding the damaged property is prohibited by civil authority.”
Equity Planning Corp. v. Westfield Ins. Co.
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory restrictions to control COVID-19, the court grants a motion to dismiss claims of the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s arguments that it suffered physical loss or damage to its properties did not sway the court. Nor did its arguments that the civil authority provisions and virus exclusion in the policy were not applicable to deny its claims.
Life Time, Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the federal court grants the plaintiffs’ motion to remand the action back to Minnesota state court to resolve the disputed issue of what qualifies as direct physical loss under state law.
Brunswick Panini’s v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court granted defendant insurer’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. The court found the plaintiffs, which operated restaurant and bar facilities in Ohio but had to suspend operations because of the pandemic, did not meet the precondition of “direct physical loss of or damage to” the covered property requirement. Further, the microorganism exclusion precluded coverage of losses.
Family Tacos, LLC v. Auto Owners Ins. Co.
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court grants motions of the defendant to dismiss claims of the plaintiff. The plaintiff files claims for coverage under its insurance policy for losses resulting from COVID-19 shutdowns and seeks to establish a class. The court decides that coverage is not provided under the policy because there is no physical loss; the civil authority provision is likewise not effective, and there is a virus exception that is applicable to the case at hand.
MIKMAR, Inc. v. Westfield Ins. Co.
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court grants the defendant insurance company’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint seeking coverage for lost business income under their insurance policies. Plaintiffs operated a hotel and adjacent banquet and catering facility. In ruling against the plaintiffs, the court found the virus did not perceptibly harm the properties and the policies included a virus exclusion that prevented coverage of business losses.