ILNews

FedEx wins reversal of jury's $66M award to ATA

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

FedEx Corp. has won an appeal that overturns a $66 million verdict in favor of defunct Indianapolis airline ATA Airlines Inc.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago heard the appeal in November and issued the reversal Tuesday morning in ATA Airlines Inc. v. Federal Express Corp., No.s 11-1271, 11-1492.

ATA initially won a jury verdict over the breach-of-contract case in October 2010. FedEx unsuccessfully appealed the decision to the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana before taking it to the higher court.

ATA charged in its initial lawsuit that FedEx’s unexpected decision in January 2008 to drop it as a military-charter partner forced it into bankruptcy liquidation that spring. ATA had been flying military charters for more than two decades, and it said FedEx was legally obligated to keep it on board through at least September 2009.

The appeals court said ATA’s legal experts failed to prove the amount of damages suffered because of the breach of contract. The court said ATA may well have suffered some losses due to FedEx’s actions, but because there was “no reasonable confidence in the jury’s damages award,” the case should be reversed.

The case hinged on a September 2006 letter that described how business was to be divvied up through September 2009 between ATA and another airline that was part of the FedEx military-charter team.

FedEx argued that was not a legal contract because it didn’t address financial terms and other key issues. It noted the legal standard for an enforceable contract is “a meeting of the minds of the parties, in mutual assent to all essential terms.”

In a court filing, FedEx attorneys wrote, “Given the uncontroverted evidence and the relevant law … there is simply no reasonable basis in the record on which the jury could find that an agreement on just one term of FedEx Team membership was an enforceable contract for FedEx Team membership.”

FedEx balked at the size of the jury's award, noting that in fiscal 2007, ATA earned just $2.1 million from its military charter business.

The $66 million judgment was supposed to go to ATA's creditors, who are still owed millions in the company's Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The 7th Circuit dismissed the suit with prejudice.

This story originally ran on IBJ.com Dec. 27, 2011.

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. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT