ILNews

Breach of contract

October 28, 2009
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Trial Report

Aviation Professionals Institute, LLC v. Gary/ Chicago International Airport Authority

Lake Superior Court -  No. 45D04-0711-CC-00187

Injuries: Lost future profits

Date: Apr. 27 - May. 1, 2009

Judge or Jury Trial: Jury Trial

Judge: Hon. Gerald N. Svetanoff

Disposition: Defense verdict

Plaintiff Attorney(s): John A. Sopuch III and Shawn Collins, Collins Law Firm, Naperville, Ill.; George Paras, Merrillville

Defendant Attorney(s): Nelson Nettles, Joseph Maguire, and Richard Norris, Norris Choplin & Schroeder, Indianapolis; Patrick Lyp, Blachly Tabor Bozik & Hartman, Valparaiso

Case Information: This was an aviation case involving a contract between the Gary/Chicago International Airport and a fixed base operator, Aviation Professionals Institute. In 2002, API signed a 10-year large hangar lease (with two 5-year options) to operate a flight school at the Gary airport. In 2005, API wished to expand into a full-service FBO, offering additional services including the sale of aviation fuel. In December 2005, the airport board approved API to become a full-service FBO; however the airport believed the terms of the contract amendment remained to be worked out and put into writing. The original lease had an integration clause requiring amendments be in writing and signed. On cross-motions for summary judgment the trial court ruled that a contract amendment existed as of the December 2005 board approval, despite the integration clause. Interlocutory appeal was denied.

The Gary airport had understood API`s plan as selling AVGAS (100 LL) the first year, and expanding into jet fuel in future years once another jet fuel tank was installed. When API learned in January 2006 that the airport would not allow them to share the existing jet fuel tanks with the other FBO, API claimed the airport breached the contract. Ultimately, API never sold aviation fuel of any kind and was evicted from the airport for the failure to pay rent by the end of 2006.
API filed an administrative complaint with the Federal Aviation Administration, which was denied. API also filed a federal court action with federal and state antitrust claims. That action was dismissed by the federal court. Then in November 2007, API filed this breach of contract action in Lake County, seeking $15 million dollars in lost future profits through 2022, the remainder of the lease term.

The jury trial concerned whether the amended contract was breached, whether API`s performance was excused, and whether a breach caused API any lost future profits. The judge allowed the jury to consider the entire future lease period for future profits, leaving to the jury to decide when such evidence became speculative. Expert testimony was the sole evidence for and against lost future profits. James Alerding, Clifton Gunderson, testified for API. Dan Ochse of Jacobs Consultancy testified for the airport. The jury deliberated 2 hours and 15 minutes before returning a verdict for the Gary airport.

 - Nelson Nettles

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT