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. I can understand a 10 yr suspension for drinking and driving and not following the rules,but don't you think the people who compleate their sentences and are trying to be good people of their community,and are on the right path should be able to obtain a drivers license to do as they please.We as a state should encourage good behavior instead of saying well you did all your time but we can't give you a license come on.When is a persons time served than cause from where I'm standing,its still a punishment,when u can't have the freedom to go where ever you want to in car,truck ,motorcycle,maybe their should be better programs for people instead of just throwing them away like daily trash,then expecting them to change because they we in jail or prison for x amount of yrs.Everyone should look around because we all pay each others bills,and keep each other in business..better knowledge equals better community equals better people...just my 2 cents

  2. I was wondering about the 6 million put aside for common attorney fees?does that mean that if you are a plaintiff your attorney fees will be partially covered?

  3. My situation was hopeless me and my husband was on the verge of divorce. I was in a awful state and felt that I was not able to cope with life any longer. I found out about this great spell caster drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail.com and tried him. Well, he did return and now we are doing well again, more than ever before. Thank you so much Drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail.comi will forever be grateful to you Drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail.com

  4. I expressed my thought in the title, long as it was. I am shocked that there is ever immunity from accountability for ANY Government agency. That appears to violate every principle in the US Constitution, which exists to limit Government power and to ensure Government accountability. I don't know how many cases of legitimate child abuse exist, but in the few cases in which I knew the people involved, in every example an anonymous caller used DCS as their personal weapon to strike at innocent people over trivial disagreements that had no connection with any facts. Given that the system is vulnerable to abuse, and given the extreme harm any action by DCS causes to families, I would assume any degree of failure to comply with the smallest infraction of personal rights would result in mandatory review. Even one day of parent-child separation in the absence of reasonable cause for a felony arrest should result in severe penalties to those involved in the action. It appears to me, that like all bureaucracies, DCS is prone to interpret every case as legitimate. This is not an accusation against DCS. It is a statement about the nature of bureaucracies, and the need for ADDED scrutiny of all bureaucratic actions. Frankly, I question the constitutionality of bureaucracies in general, because their power is delegated, and therefore unaccountable. No Government action can be unaccountable if we want to avoid its eventual degeneration into irrelevance and lawlessness, and the law of the jungle. Our Constitution is the source of all Government power, and it is the contract that legitimizes all Government power. To the extent that its various protections against intrusion are set aside, so is the power afforded by that contract. Eventually overstepping the limits of power eliminates that power, as a law of nature. Even total tyranny eventually crumbles to nothing.

  5. Being dedicated to a genre keeps it alive until the masses catch up to the "trend." Kent and Bill are keepin' it LIVE!! Thank you gentlemen..you know your JAZZ.

ADVERTISEMENT