Whitesell Corporation v. Whirlpool Corporation et al
Filing
733
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 726 motion for judgment as a matter of law ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN S O U T H E R N DIVISION
W H I T E S E L L CORPORATION, P l a in tif f , C a se No. 1:05-CV-679 v. H O N . ROBERT HOLMES BELL W H I R L P O O L CORPORATION, W H IR L P O O L MEXICO S.A. de C.V., a n d JOSEPH SHARKEY, D e f e n d a n ts , and W H I R L P O O L CORPORATION, C o u n te r- P l a in tif f , v. W H I T E S E L L CORPORATION, C o u n ter -D e f e n d a n t. / M E M O R A N D U M OPINION AND ORDER T h is matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 for ju d g m e n t as a matter of law on Defendant's counterclaim. (Dkt. No. 726.) Defendant has a ss e rte d a counterclaim against Plaintiff for breach of Section 6.1 of the 2002 SAA, the total c o st productivity, or TCP, provision. The TCP provision required Plaintiff to develop and p re se n t to Defendant, during each year of the 2002 SAA, verifiable cost-saving proposals
e x p e c te d to reduce Defendant's costs by 5% of the total value of the items purchased by D e f e n d a n t under the 2002 SAA each year. Defendant expressly reserved the right to " d e te rm in e whether such project[s] should be implemented." (Dkt. No. 440 Ex. 1 § 6.) P la in t if f argues that "a reasonable jury [does] not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis" to find for Defendant on the issue of whether Defendant proved its claim for breach of the T C P provision because non-speculative damages are an element of all breach of contract c la im s and Defendant has presented only speculative evidence that it might have im p le m e n te d the TCP proposals. The Court concludes that, based on the entirety of the record, a reasonable jury does h a v e a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for Defendant on the issue of whether D e f en d a n t suffered non-speculative damages from any alleged breach of the TCP provision b y Plaintiff. Plaintiff is correct that "damages predicated on speculation and conjecture are n o t recoverable" under Michigan law. Health Call of Detroit v. Atrium Home & Health Care S e rv s., Inc., 706 N.W.2d 843, 852 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). However, this does not mean that a party is required to prove damages with absolute certainty. Id. Instead, the rule is that the p a rty asserting a breach of contract must prove damages with "reasonable certainty." Alan C u s to m Homes, Inc. v. Krol, 667 N.W.2d 379, 383 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). In support of its motion, Plaintiff presents trial testimony from Whirlpool employees T o m Egan and John Mott that Defendant did, in fact, retain sole discretion to determine w h e th e r to implement a given TCP proposal and that, on various occasions in the past,
2
D e f en d a n t decided not to implement certain TCP proposals. Though this evidence would bar a conclusion that Defendant was absolutely certain to implement the TCP programs that P la in tif f allegedly failed to present, Defendant's burden of proof is not that high. Defendant m u s t only offer proof that it was reasonably certain to implement the programs that Plaintiff a lleg e d ly failed to present, and Mr. Egan and Mr. Mott's testimony is not fatal to this c o n c lu s io n . Based on the entirety of the record, it is clear that Defendant has presented s u f f ic ie n t evidence for the jury to find with reasonable certainty that Defendant would have im p le m e n te d the TCP proposals that Plaintiff allegedly failed to present. Plaintiff also argues that, even if Defendant has shown, with the requisite level of c e rta in ty, that Defendant would have implemented the TCP proposals, the amount of savings th a t would have resulted from the proposals is also speculative. Defendant is apparently a rg u in g that, even if a TCP proposal contemplates a 5% reduction in Whirlpool's costs, the a c tu a l cost reduction might turn out to be zero when the program is actually implemented, a n d for this reason the jury cannot find that Defendant has established non-speculative d a m a g e s . However, the TCP provision explicitly requires that proposals be "based on re a so n a b le , verifiable assumptions." (Dkt. No. 440 Ex. 1 § 6.1A.) The Court concludes that a proposal "based on reasonable, verifiable assumptions" is reasonably certain to result in the c o s t savings that it predicts, even if it ultimately does not. See Severn v. Sperry Corp., 538 N .W .2 d 50, 55 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995) ("[R]ecovery is not precluded simply because proof o f the amount of damages is not mathematically precise.").
3
F o r the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that based on the entirety of the record a reasonable jury does have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for Defendant on the is s u e of whether Defendant was damaged by Plaintiff's alleged failure to submit TCP p ro p o s a ls . Accordingly, I T IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law ( D k t . No. 726) is DENIED.
Dated: February 16, 2010
/s/ Robert Holmes Bell ROBERT HOLMES BELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?