ILNews

7th Circuit upholds jury award reduction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a District Court's grant of a motion for judgment as a matter of law on a breach of contract claim, finding a previously granted jury award of damages was based on speculation.

In John Wasson v. Peabody Coal Co., No. 07-2758, John Wasson appealed the decision by the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, New Albany Division, which overturned a $350,000 verdict in his favor following a bifurcated jury trial in a breach of contract suit with Peabody Coal Co. Wasson claimed the company underpaid royalties he was entitled to for coal mined on his property.

The District Court granted Peabody's motion for judgment as a matter of law and reduced the jury's award to less than $1,000. Wasson appealed, arguing the District Court erred in denying his motion for a continuance prior to trial, in barring his expert witness from testifying, and the court shouldn't have set aside the jury award for damages because there was ample evidence for the jury to find in his favor.

But the 7th Circuit disagreed with Wasson's arguments, finding him partly to blame for wanting more time to review requested records from Peabody. His interrogatories were very broad in scope, which may have expanded his original inquiries, wrote Judge Diane Wood. Wasson had ample time to review the documents to determine whether additional discovery was necessary before expiration of the discovery deadline, but he didn't act on the matter, wrote the judge.

Wasson's expert witness was his accountant, and his report claimed the coal price Peabody paid to Wasson was too low; however the accountant used data from a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission report, which he had never used before. The accountant even admitted he was unaware of how to use the data of the report. The accountant's opinion wasn't based on sufficient facts or data, nor was it a product of reliable principles or methods as is required by Fed. R. Evid. 702, wrote Judge Wood

The District Court was correct in ruling the jury's award of damages to Wasson must be set aside because they were based on nothing but speculation, wrote the judge. Review of a trial exhibit Wasson claimed supported his award was nothing but his scratch-paperwork guessing what his damages would be. The reduction of the award to $965.62 was the actual amount Peabody admitted to owing Wasson.

"The district court held that it could 'identify no reasonable basis in the evidence for the jury's $350,000 damage award to Mr. Wasson.' Neither can we," wrote Judge Wood.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. A sad end to a prolific gadfly. Indiana has suffered a great loss in the journalistic realm.

  2. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  3. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  4. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  5. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

ADVERTISEMENT