Expand the following panels for additional search options.

Another expert ‘Dauberted’ out of a damages case

In last week’s issue, we reported on a damages case in which a valuation expert’s testimony was excluded because of the methodology used in the analysis. In this week’s case (also a damages matter), the expert didn’t even get that far before being excluded.

Lost profits calculation goes off the track

In a Missouri breach of contract case, the plaintiffs were carriers who delivered print newspapers to subscribers under an agreement that gave them territorial rights.

Bextermueller News Distribs., Inc. v. Lee Enters.

In determining damages, the plaintiffs’ damages expert used a method of determining damages revolving around a calculation of lost revenue. The defendants argued the testimony was irrelevant and unreliable because the lost revenue calculations were based on the erroneous premise that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover, as damages, delivery fees for digital subscribers to a newspaper. The court disagreed and excluded the expert’s testimony under Rule 702.

Plaintiff Expert Is Excluded—Lost Revenue Calculation Is Not an Approach Allowed for Damages in Missouri (Rule 702 Exclusion)

Plaintiff news carriers operated as home delivery carriers under a contract with the defendant newspaper. Around 2017, the defendant began offering an electronic version of the newspaper, allegedly breaching the exclusive territorial provisions of the contract with the carriers. In determining damages, the plaintiffs’ damages expert used a method of determining damages revolving around a calculation of lost revenue. The defendants argued her testimony was irrelevant and unreliable because her lost revenue calculations were based on the erroneous premise that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover, as damages, delivery fees for every digital subscriber. The court disagreed and excluded the expert’s testimony under Rule 702.

Crocker v. Greater Colo. Anesthesia

Appeals court agrees with trial court that deal price does not reflect target’s fair value because price resulting from merger of medical entities compensated shareholders for agreeing to substantial future pay reduction and for making other concessions.

Deal Price Represents Unreliable Starting Point for Fair Value Calculation

Appeals court agrees with trial court that deal price does not reflect target’s fair value because price resulting from merger of medical entities compensated shareholders for agreeing to substantial future pay reduction and for making other concessions.

Failure to Test Causation Narrative Clouds Analysis of Lost Profits

Court strikes parts of lost profits opinion, finding expert adopted plaintiff’s causation theory, “pinning the company’s overall financial performance” on defendants’ allegedly defective crane without offering supporting data or methodology to test theory ...

Admissibility Does Not Depend on Personal Knowledge of Facts

Appeals court says expert’s lack of personal knowledge of information undergirding lost profits calculation does not disqualify his opinion, as long as he can show experts in his field would rely on this information and it is otherwise reasonably reliable ...

Am. Aerial Servs. v. Terex United States

Court strikes parts of lost profits opinion, finding expert adopted plaintiff’s causation theory, “pinning the company’s overall financial performance” on defendants’ allegedly defective crane without offering supporting data or methodology to test theory ...

Am. Eagle Waste Indust., LLC v. St. Louis County

Appeals court says expert’s lack of personal knowledge of information undergirding lost profits calculation does not disqualify his opinion, as long as he can show experts in his field would rely on this information and it is otherwise reasonably reliable ...

Expert’s Analysis of Business Interruption Loss Breaks Over Selection of Growth Rate

Expert’s analysis of business-interruption losses breaks down over selection of a revenue growth rate from a short (five-month) period prior to the business injury.

Manpower, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania (I)

Expert’s analysis of business-interruption losses breaks down over selection of a revenue growth rater from a short (five-month) period prior to the business injury.

12 results