COA disagrees on damages to bidder

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals judges disagreed today whether a company should be entitled to damages when it lowered its bid for work at a state-run hospital based on fraudulent information from another bidder.

Judges Edward Najam and Terry Crone affirmed the award of damages to Liberty Healthcare Corp. in its suit against Columbus Medical Services Organization for tortious interference with a business relationship, and for treble damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Crime Victims Relief Act.

Liberty and Columbus were bidding for the provision of psychiatric medical staffing services at Logansport State Hospital, which is owned by the state. At the time of the bidding, Liberty had been providing services at the hospital. During the request for proposal process, Columbus made misrepresentations and claimed doctors who worked for Liberty expressed interest in working for Columbus under the proposal. Columbus never spoke to these doctors.

As a result of a similar evaluation by the state, it requested Liberty and Columbus submit a second Best and Final Offer; Liberty had lowered its bid in order to win the contract. Columbus came in with the lower price and was awarded the contract. After the fraud was discovered, Liberty entered into a contract with the state, but was stuck at the lower bid price from the second Best and Final Offer. Liberty claimed that if it hadn't been for Columbus' fraud, it would have won the contract earlier on with a higher bid.

In Columbus Medical Services Organization LLC v. Liberty Healthcare Corp., No. 82A04-0808-CV-466, the majority agreed with the trial court's calculation of $486,497 in lost profits directly related to Columbus' fraudulent behavior. The specific amount was based on testimony from Liberty's CFO, who based his testimony on the mathematical calculation of the difference between the profits that would have been realized under the first BAFO and the profits realized under the contract that was eventually accepted by the state. The majority also acknowledged that it wasn't possible to calculate the damages with absolute certainty, but noted that tort damages don't require absolute certainty.

Chief Judge John Baker disagreed with his colleagues, believing the damage award to Liberty is too speculative. The trial court attempted to right the wrongs committed by Columbus, but there's no way of knowing what would have happened if Columbus hadn't committed fraud, been eliminated sooner, or not even participated.

"I also believe that the result reached by the majority leads to bad public policy. No one held a gun to Liberty's proverbial head and forced it to lower its bid. Liberty chose to do so. Admittedly, its decision was based on faulty, likely fraudulent, information, but it was a choice, nonetheless," he wrote.

As a matter of public policy, courts shouldn't award damages to a company that decided it was able and willing to lower its bid on a project, even if that decision was based on a competitor's fraud, he continued.

The chief judge concurred with the majority's conclusion that the Crime Victims Relief Act applied to Liberty. He would reverse the damages award, order a nominal damages award of $1 to Liberty, treble it under the CVRA to $3, and affirm the award of $473,468.04 for attorneys' fees and litigation expenses.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.