ILNews

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT