Adams, et al v. USA
Filing
2125
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - Denied in part and reserved in part 1990 Fifth MOTION for Summary Judgment Re Plaintiffs' Fraud, Assumed Duty & Other Claims filed by E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, Inc.; It is denied to the extent it seeks to dismiss claims for lost asset value. It is reserved in all other respects for all issues not resolved by prior decisions.. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by dks)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
TIMM ADAMS, et al.,
Case No. 4:CV 03-49-BLW
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER RE DUPONT’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE
LOST ASSET VALUE
Defendants.
INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it that part of DuPont’s motion for summary judgment
challenging claims for lost asset value by certain plaintiffs. The Court heard oral
argument on October 3, 2011, and took these issues under advisement. For the reasons
expressed below, the Court will deny this part of DuPont’s motion.
ANALYSIS
DuPont seeks summary judgment to dismiss claims for “lost asset value.” These
claims, made by a number of plaintiffs, are supported by the plaintiffs’ damage expert,
Cornelius Hofman. The claims are part of plaintiffs’ larger claim for the destruction of
their business. Plaintiffs allege that but for the crop damage Oust caused, they would
have continued farming for at least several more years, and so they seek their lost profits
for those years and, in some instances, the profit they would have made selling out at the
Memorandum Decision & Order - 1
end of that period.
Hofman’s calculations for these “destruction of business” claims contain two
elements: lost assets and lost profits. It is the lost asset calculation that is at issue here,
but it is important to see how the lost asset claim fits with the lost profit claims to form a
“destruction of business” claim.
The goal of damages is to “put an injured party in a position as nearly as possible
equivalent to his position prior to the tort.” Weitz v. Green, 230 P.3d 743, 758 (Idaho
2010). If a business is destroyed by a tort, the owner loses any profits he would have
made running the business thereafter and, when he was ready to leave the business, any
profits he would have made selling out. Of course, it is fair game for the defense to show,
for example, that the owner would not have continued in business, or if he continued he
would have lost money and made nothing selling out. But the essential methodology
described above appears sound as one way to make a tort victim whole.
That is how Hofman has calculated his “destruction of business” damages. He
calculates the profits the plaintiff would have made continuing to operate the business
(lost profits) and adds to that the profit he would have made selling out (the lost asset
value).
While DuPont argues that damages should be calculated another way, that is a
matter for the jury. Of course, the evidence at trial may alter the Court’s view of this.
But at this time, the Court cannot find that Hofman’s method of calculating lost asset
value is improper as a matter of law.
Memorandum Decision & Order - 2
ORDER
In accordance with the Memorandum Decision set forth above,
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that DuPont’s motion for
summary judgment (docket no. 1990) is DENIED IN PART AND RESERVED IN
PART. It is denied to the extent it seeks to dismiss claims for lost asset value. It is
reserved in all other respects for all issues not resolved by prior decisions.
DATED: October 7, 2011
Honorable B. Lynn Winmill
Chief U. S. District Judge
Memorandum Decision & Order - 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?