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
Torgerson Props. v. Cont’l Cas. Co.
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, a federal court granted the defendant insurer’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s suit over coverage, finding plaintiff’s claim for loss of income based on state orders restricting use does not meet “direct physical loss” prerequisite.
Innovation Ventures, L.L.C. v. Custom Nutrition Labs., L.L.C.
This case involves a consideration of motions by both the plaintiff and the defendant to exclude the testimony of the other party’s expert witness on the basis of Daubert and the Federal Rules of Evidence. The plaintiff’s expert offered testimony on how to calculate lost profits based on the plaintiff’s market share. The defendant’s expert offered testimony as to weaknesses in the plaintiff’s calculations and opinions on damages. The court denied both of these cross-motions.
Protégé Rest. Partners LLC v. Sentinel Ins. Co.
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court says the plaintiff, a California restaurant, failed to state plausible claims to relief but gives plaintiff an opportunity to amend its complaint, even if “it does not seem likely” the plaintiff will be able to overcome the complaint’s deficiencies.
AFM Mattress Co. v. Motorists Commercial Mutual Insurance Company
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court grants a motion to dismiss claims of plaintiff. While plaintiff claims losses due to COVID-19, it does not sufficiently move the court to consider the virus exclusion of the policy inapplicable. A motion for a sur-response to espouse an alternative theory was also denied but without prejudice.
Graspa Consulting v. United Nat’l Ins. Co.
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court dismisses plaintiff’s (a restaurant chain owner/operator) claims against insurance company; plaintiffs did not incur (nor did it assert) physical damages to premises as required by the terms of the insurance policy.
S. Fla. Ent Assocs. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court grants a motion to dismiss claims of the plaintiff. While the plaintiff claims losses due to COVID-19 shutdowns, the plaintiff fails to allege any actual harm to the insured property.
Real Hosp., LLC v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am.
In this business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, the court granted a motion by the defendant insurance company to dismiss claims of plaintiffs; plaintiffs did not argue that they sustained a physical loss, and coverage would have been denied nevertheless by the virus exemption.
Precision Kidd Acquisition, LLC v. Pass
Proper Damages Measure Is Lost Profits Calculation, Not DCF-Based Loss Analysis
In merger-related damages case, court upholds damages based on profits lost from key client’s termination of supply agreement with seller company; trial court properly rejected buyer expert’s DCF-based loss analysis which, among other flaws, overstated value of lost contract to seller company.
Boesch v. Holeman (I)
Partnership Statute Precludes Use of Minority Discount in Buying Out Dissociated Partner
In dispute over value of dissociated partner’s one-third interest in whiskey business, appeals court says trial court erred in adopting value determination that applied discount for lack of control; applicable partnership law requires value be based on sale of entire business as a going concern.
Turek Enterprises, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
In business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, court finds plaintiff chiropractic clinic failed to show insurer breached its policy; court says plaintiff did not demonstrate “tangible damage” to property and failed to overcome policy’s express virus exclusion.
Diesel Barbershop, LLC v. State Farm Lloyds
In a business interruption case resulting from mandatory shutdowns to control COVID-19, court dismisses plaintiff barbershops’ claims against insurance company; plaintiffs failed to show accidental direct physical loss to premises as required for coverage and did not overcome express virus exclusion.
Studio 417 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 claims of plaintiffs; plaintiffs, inter alia, adequately allege that they suffered a physical loss due to COVID-19.
Rose’s 1, LLC v. Erie Ins. Exch.
Court Says Restaurants Fail to Meet Requirements for COVID-19-Related Business Interruption Coverage
D.C. court, ruling on parties’ motions for summary judgment, finds restaurant owners cannot show that mayor’s COVID-19-related closure orders constituted “direct physical loss” to the property, as required under the existing business interruption policy; court rules for insurer and closes case.
Geiger v. Creative Impact Inc.
Expert’s Damages Calculation Based on Extensive Experience in Field Is Reliable, Court Finds
Court admits survey evidence, finding expert’s methodology conformed to accepted principles in the field and noting that technical objections go toward weight; court also admits both parties’ damages experts, finding they had extensive experience in the field and were both qualified; questions as to reliability of method “can be explored at trial.”
NetOne, Inc. v. Panache Destination Management
Plaintiff’s COVID-Related Contract Claim Falters Despite Force Majeure Provision
Court says plaintiff fails to show defendant breached contract in COVID-19-related damages case; plaintiff’s invocation of force majeure clause is futile where clause is silent as to whether plaintiff has a right to full deposit after termination of contract due to imposed travel restrictions.
J&M Industries, Inc. v. Raven Industries, Inc.
Court admits most of damages expert’s reasonable royalty opinion, finding expert properly apportioned out value of nonpatented features in calculating royalty rate; expert’s use of industry-specific data from ktMINE database was reasonable and sufficiently tied to facts of the case, court says.
Binghamton Precast & Supply Corp. v Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co.
Court Affirms Plaintiff’s Showing of Loss of Income Pursuant to Business Interruption Policy
In dispute over business interruption insurance coverage, appellate court says plaintiff showed actual loss of business income within meaning of controlling policy; court rejects defendant’s argument that plaintiff had to show lost sales, saying this is not a reasonable interpretation of policy.
Optical Works & Logistics, LLC v. Sentinel Ins. Co.
Business Interruption Claim Raises Triable Issue as to Viability of New Business, Court Finds
In business interruption case, court denies insurer’s summary judgment motion, finding plaintiff’s breach of contract suit raises many issues of material fact, including whether plaintiff’s fledgling business was ever viable and, but for insurer’s refusal to pay claim, could have resumed operations.
Edelson v. Cheung
Court Agrees Market Approach Generates Most Accurate Value of Plaintiff’s Interest
In business dispute alleging breach and fraud, court adopts plaintiff expert’s methodology to value contested interest by way of the market approach; court notes expert well explained why the income approach was not available and the asset approach was too limited to provide an accurate valuation.
Great Hill Equity Partners IV, LP v. SIG Growth Equity Fund I, LLP
Plaintiff’s Overbroad Damages Calculation Prompts Court Not to Grant Award for Proven Wrongdoing
Court rejects plaintiff’s damages calculation related to sweeping fraud and contract breach allegations where plaintiff submitted expert report before court’s liability rulings and failed to offer revised expert report after liability trial; damages were not sufficiently tied to proven wrongs.
Wright v. Old Gringo, Inc.
Court Finds Delayed Disclosure of Expert’s Complete Report ‘Substantially Justified’
Court denies defendants’ Rule 37 motion to exclude opposing expert’s report and testimony; court notes reason for expert report’s lateness was defendants’ litigation strategy, including efforts to thwart production of financial information vital for valuation of company and damages calculation.
Eurochem North America Corp. v. Ganske
Court finds proposed expert testimony inadmissible under Rule 702 and Daubert where expert did not himself prepare the value determination, conceded any estimate of value by his firm was prepared for marketing purposes, and where damages model that expert testimony supported was fatally flawed.
In re Manhattan By Sail, Inc.
Court Rejects Parties’ Expert Valuations of Unique Sailing Vessel as Unreliable
In damages case involving unique ship for which there was no active market, court says parties’ experts provided some data points relevant to valuing ship but failed to give adequate explanations of rationales and calculations, making testimony unreliable; court performs its own analysis.
Sunoco Partnership Mktg. & Terminals L.P. v. U.S. Venture, Inc.
Plaintiff Fails Panduit Test Where Lost Profits Analysis Includes ‘Far More’ Than Value of Patents
In infringement case, court rejects plaintiff expert’s lost profits and reasonable royalty analyses, noting both rely on supply agreements covering more than the value of the patents; plaintiff fails Panduit test but is entitled to reasonable royalty based on opposing expert’s calculation.
Pawelko v. Hasbro, Inc.
Court Decides Daubert Exclusion of Expert Testimony for Failure to Apportion Is Premature
In trade secrets dispute, court denies defendant’s Daubert motion, finding exclusion of opposing damages expert testimony for failure to apportion is premature; whether or not entire market value rule applies is determination for jury “after hearing all the documentary and testimonial evidence.”