Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-14-03365/USCOURTS-ca8-14-03365-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 150
Nature of Suit: Overpayments &amp; Enforcement of Judgments
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-3365

___________________________

BLB Aviation South Carolina, LLC

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Jet Linx Aviation, LLC; Jet Linx Aviation Corporation; Jet Linx Management

Company, LLC; Jamie Walker

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Nebraska - Omaha

____________

 Submitted: September 22, 2015

 Filed: December 14, 2015

____________

Before RILEY, Chief Judge, BYE and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

____________

GRUENDER, Circuit Judge.

BLB Aviation South Carolina, LLC (“BLB”) sued Jet Linx Aviation

Corporation; Jet Linx Aviation, LLC; Jet Linx Management Company, LLC

Appellate Case: 14-3365 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/14/2015 Entry ID: 4345956 
(collectively, “Jet Linx” ); and Jamie Walker for damages arising from breach of 1

contract. Jet Linx counterclaimed. After a bench trial, the district court awarded

damages to both parties, and both parties appealed. We affirmed in part, but we

reversed and remanded for the district court to analyze whether the cost-of-repair

damages BLB sought would entail unreasonable economic waste before choosing

between the cost-of-repair and diminution-in-value measures of damages. On

remand, the district court found BLB’s damagestoo speculative under either measure

2

of damages, thereby precluding recovery. We affirm.

I.

The facts underlying this case are set forth more extensively in our previous

opinion. BLB Aviation South Carolina, LLC v. Jet Linx Aviation, LLC, 748 F.3d 829,

841 (8th Cir. 2014) [hereinafter “BLB I”]. We recite only the facts relevant to the

current appeal. 

BLB is an aviation company that owns airplanes, some of which are leased for

charter flights. BLB is owned by Barry L. Bellue, Sr. and his son Barry L. Bellue, Jr.

(“Lee Bellue”). Jet Linx operates an aircraft charter business. Jamie Walker was an

employee of Jet Linx.

The parties’ relationship began when Walker inquired about the possibility of

leasing one or more BLB airplanes for Jet Linx’s charter services. Shortly thereafter,

Jet Linx Aviation Corporation has since merged into Jet Linx Aviation LLC 1

and no longer exists as a separate entity; however, we adopt the parties’ convention

in not distinguishing among Jet Linx entities for the purposes of which entity or

entities were parties to the contracts at issue here.

The Honorable Thomas D. Thalken, United States Magistrate Judge for the

2

District of Nebraska, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent

of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-3365 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/14/2015 Entry ID: 4345956 
Lee Bellue and Walker discussed the possibility of BLB purchasing an airplane and

leasing it to Jet Linx. BLB and Jet Linx then entered into a dry-lease agreement for

one aircraft, which had the registration number N400GK. The lease agreement made

Jet Linx responsible for maintenance of N400GK. Jet Linx further agreed that “[a]ll

inspections, repairs, modifications, maintenance, and overhaul work . . . will be

performed in accordance with the standards set by the Federal Aviation Regulations”

and agreed to “maintain log books and records . . . in accordance with the Federal

Aviation Regulations.” The lease agreement required BLB to pay for the

maintenance performed by Jet Linx on N400GK.

BLB and Jet Linx also negotiated a management-services agreement for Jet

Linx to charter another of BLB’s airplanes, registered as N789DJ. Pursuant to this

services agreement, BLB agreed to reimburse Jet Linx for certain expenses for

N789DJ. As with the N400GK lease agreement, Jet Linx agreed to “ensure that all

maintenance and repair work on N789DJ was performed in accordance with the

standards set out in the Federal Aviation Regulations and to ensure that all such

maintenance work was accurately recorded in accordance with the Federal Aviation

Regulations.”

Following a maintenance incident that resulted in disputed repair costs, the

parties’ relationship deteriorated. Barry Bellue requested that N789DJ be returned

to BLB, and Jet Linx informed BLB that it would not renew the N400GK lease

agreement under its existing terms.

BLB brought this action for damages against Jet Linx and Walker alleging

breach of contract; Jet Linx then counterclaimed against BLB. After a bench trial,

3

the district court concluded that Jet Linx had breached the N400GK dry-lease

agreement and the N789DJmanagement-services agreement by failing to keep proper

Before trial, the N400GK was sold “as is” for $425,000. 3

-3-

Appellate Case: 14-3365 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/14/2015 Entry ID: 4345956 
records and parts tags for maintenance performed by Jet Linx on the airplanes. 

However, the court declined to award damages because it found that BLB had failed

to prove them with sufficient certainty. Jet Linx appealed, and BLB cross-appealed.

In BLB I, we affirmed the district court on four issues, but we reversed and

remanded for further analysis on the appropriate measure of damages to award to

BLB for Jet Linx’s breach. Specifically, we disagreed with the district court for

having “concluded that the diminution in the value of the airplanes is the proper

measure of BLB’s damages without undertaking any . . . analysis” regarding whether

the cost-of-repair measure of damages would entail unreasonable economic waste. 

BLB I, 748 F.3d at 841. “Absent such a finding,” we wrote, “it was error for the

district court to choose diminution in value as the appropriate measure of BLB’s

damages.” Id. (citation omitted).

On remand, after analyzing BLB’s damages under both the cost-of-repair and

diminution-in-value measures, the district court again found that BLB failed to prove

damages with sufficient certainty. BLB again appeals. For the reasons set forth

below, we affirm.

II.

Because both parties cite Nebraska law for the standard of review, we apply

Nebraska law “in accordance with the practice of our prior opinions that considered

an appeal following a bench trial in a diversity action.” BLB I, 748 F.3d at 835. 4

Accordingly, in this appeal from a bench trial, “the trial court’s factual findings have

We again note that, in other cases, our court has concluded that the standard 4

of review is a procedural issue that is governed by federal law. Kramer v. Cash Link

Sys., 715 F.3d 1082, 1086 (8th Cir. 2013); see Newberry v. Burlington Basket Co.,

622 F.3d 979, 983 (8th Cir. 2010). As before, we discern no difference between the

federal and state standards of review as applied here.

-4-

Appellate Case: 14-3365 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/14/2015 Entry ID: 4345956 
the effect of a jury verdict and will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly wrong.”

City of Scottsbluff v. Waste Connections of Neb., Inc., 809 N.W.2d 725, 739 (Neb.

2011). “[W]e independently review questions of law decided by a [district] court,”

id., noting that, in a contracts case, “[w]hile the amount of damages presents a

question of fact, the proper measure of damages presents a question of law.” 

Connelly v. City of Omaha, 816 N.W.2d 742, 753 (Neb. 2012). 

This case presents two issues. First, we must address BLB’s contention that

cost of repair represents the correct measure of damages because Jet Linx failed to

carry its burden to show economic waste would result. Second, we must determine

whether the district court erred in finding that BLB did not prove its damages with

sufficient certainty. We address each issue in turn.

A.

On appeal, BLB first argues that the district court erred by finding that BLB

was not entitled to damages measured by the cost of repair, namely, the $171,363.37

that BLB’s expert testified represents the cost to rectify the lack of maintenance

records and part tags by redoing the underlying maintenance work. BLB’s expert,

Keith Flinn, arrived at that figure by summing the amounts Jet Linx had previously

billed BLB for maintenance work on both airplanes for which documentation and

parts tags subsequently were determined to be missing. Although Jet Linx failed to

provide a complete set of maintenance records and parts tags when it returned the

airplanes, the parties do not dispute that Jet Linx provided the underlying

maintenance.

The appropriate choice between the available measures of damages “depends

upon the evidence in the particular case.” Fink v. Denbeck, 293 N.W.2d 398, 401-02

(Neb. 1980). If a defect in the performance of a contract can be remedied, the

ordinary measure of damages is the cost of repair. Id. at 402. As we noted in BLB

-5-

Appellate Case: 14-3365 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/14/2015 Entry ID: 4345956 
I, “the plaintiff is entitled to damages measured by the cost of repair ‘unless [the

defendant] proves affirmatively and convincingly that such construction and

completion would involve an unreasonable economic waste.’” 748 F.3d at 841

(quoting Moss v. Speck, 306 N.W.2d 156, 158 (Neb. 1981) (quoting 5 A. Corbin,

Contracts § 488 (1964))). Diminution-in-value damages provide the alternative

measure, consisting of the “difference in value between the thing as represented and

its actual value.” Fink, 293 N.W.2d. at 402. Thus, cost of repair suppliesthe default 5

measure unless the breaching party shows that economic waste would result. 

Economic waste occurs where “the cost of completion as required by the

contract greatly outweighs the benefit to the owner to do so.” 13 Am. Jur. 2d

Building, Etc. Contracts § 82; see also A-1 Track & Tennis, Inc. v. Asphalt Maint.,

Inc., No. A-99-433, 2000 WL 781371, at *5 (Neb. Ct. App. June 20, 2000)

(describing economic waste as arising “where the cost of correction would be grossly

out of proportion to the value which the correction would add to the property

involved”). BLB insists that cost of repair is the proper measure of damages and that

repairing the damage of missing maintenance records and parts tags necessitates

completely redoing the underlying maintenance work. However, the notion of

replacing undisputedly good parts with new parts for the sake of obtaining complete

Although this rule has been applied most often in the context of construction

5

contracts, the Nebraska Supreme Court has applied it more broadly, including to a

contract for repair. See Lis v. Moser Well Drilling & Serv., Inc., 377 N.W.2d 98, 99-

100 (Neb. 1985) (explaining that this rule applies to an “improvement” where the

defendant failed to solve a well overflow problem); see also A R L Corp. v. Hroch,

268 N.W.2d 101, 103-04 (Neb. 1978) (applying rule where defendant failed to

prepare property for paving); 24 Williston on Contracts § 66:17 (4th ed. 2013)

(noting that the principles underlying the choice between cost-of-repair damages and

diminution-in-value damages “are generally applicable to all kinds of contracts for

a particular piece of work”). Although the dry-lease and management-services

agreements are leases for the use of BLB’s airplanes, the contractual provisions at

issue here require Jet Linx to maintain and repair BLB’s airplanes.

-6-

Appellate Case: 14-3365 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/14/2015 Entry ID: 4345956 
maintenance records exemplifies unreasonable economic waste. Undertaking such

repairs would be grossly disproportional to the value a new set of records and parts

tags would add to the airplanes, particularly when, as Jet Linx shows here, several

cheaper alternatives are available. Jet Linx’s expert, Allen E. King, testified that

remedying Jet Linx’s breach did not necessitate redoing the underlying repairs,

explaining alternative methods of compliance with Federal Aviation Regulation

maintenance action record requirements beyond keeping a particular type of logbook

or parts tags. Other methods of verifying a given airplane part include examining a

type certificate data sheet, looking at an illustrative parts catalog, reviewing the

aircraft equipment list that comes with the airplane, or physically inspecting the part

and verifying it with the manufacturer. Even BLB’s expert, Flinn, acknowledged the

availability of other, more reasonable alternativesto remedy Jet Linx’s breach. Flinn

testified that, in order to remedy incomplete maintenance records and parts tags,

“you’d have to go back and look and eitherredo that maintenance task that you don’t

have a record for, or if you don’t have a parts tag for[,] you’d have to take the part

and get it recertified or something like that to make sure you have airworthy

components on the airplane.” Flinn, echoing King, admitted that another mode of

certifying maintenance involved physically inspecting aircraft parts for make and

model to compare the data to the type certificate data sheet or catalog. The

availability of these alternatives renders BLB’s version of cost-of-repair damages

economically wasteful. Because courts must avoid unreasonable economic waste in

awarding damages, the district court properly refused to award the cost-of-repair

damages BLB posited.

Jet Linx also contendsthat BLB’s formulation of cost-of-repair damages would

result in windfall to BLB, further undercutting the presumption that the cost of repair

provides the correct remedy. “In a breach of contract case, the ultimate objective of

a damages award is to put the injured party in the same position he orshe would have

occupied if the contract had been performed, that is, to make the injured party whole.” 

Ed Miller & Sons, Inc. v. Earl, 502 N.W.2d 444, 450 (Neb. 1993). In light of this

-7-

Appellate Case: 14-3365 Page: 7 Date Filed: 12/14/2015 Entry ID: 4345956 
objective, a court will award cost-of-repair damages only when such an amount

“provide[s] a reasonably accurate measure of damages . . . and do[es] not result in a

windfall.” Id. at 451. Indeed, the Restatement explicitly links windfall with

economic waste:

Damages based on the cost to remedy the defects would then give the

injured party a recovery greatly in excess of the loss in value to him and

result in a substantial windfall. Such an award will not be made. It is

sometimessaid that the award would involve “economic waste,” but this

is a misleading expression since an injured party will not, even if

awarded an excessive amount of damages, usually pay to have the

defects remedied if to do so will cost him more than the resulting

increase in value to him.

Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 348 cmt. c (Am. Law Inst. 1981). Had Jet Linx

properly recorded the maintenance and kept the parts tags as stipulated in the drylease and management-services agreements, Jet Linx would not have returned the

airplanes to BLB in a different condition—only the logbook and the partstags would

have differed. Further, BLB likely would not apply the cost-of-repair damages

amount itseeks toward actuallyredoing the maintenance work underlying the missing

records and parts tags. BLB no longer owns N400GK, and, in any event, BLB does

not dispute that Jet Linx provided the underlying maintenance and parts. 

Accordingly, cost-of-repair damages as argued by BLB would result in windfall and,

therefore, in economic waste, a result the district court properly avoided. Diminution

in value thus provides the appropriate measure of damages.

B.

Having established diminution in value asthe proper measure of damages here,

we must next determine whether BLB proved its damages with sufficient certainty. 

The district court correctly noted that neither party presented non-speculative

evidence of any diminution in value for either aircraft; however, critical to this

-8-

Appellate Case: 14-3365 Page: 8 Date Filed: 12/14/2015 Entry ID: 4345956 
appeal, the burden of proving the amount of damages with sufficient certainty fell to

BLB. The Nebraska Supreme Court “consistently [has] framed the question whether

the evidence of damages is ‘reasonably certain’ as a question of law.” Pribil v.

Koinzan, 665 N.W.2d 567, 572-73 (Neb. 2003); see Shipler v Gen. Motors Corp., 710

N.W.2d 807, 839 (Neb. 2006). The plaintiff bears the burden of proving its damages

with sufficient specificity. LeRoy Weyant & Sons, Inc. v. Harvey, 321 N.W.2d 429,

431 (Neb. 1982). Although evidence may fall short of “mathematical certainty,” a

plaintiff may not rely on “evidence which isspeculative and conjectural.” Sack Bros.

v. Great Plains Co-op., Inc., 616 N.W.2d 796, 809 (Neb. 2000). 

In light of the alternative methods available to BLB to remedy the breach,

BLB’s exclusive reliance on the cost to redo the maintenance completely, measured

by the cost BLB previously paid for that maintenance, proves fatal. Rather than

establish how the lack of documentation and tags actually diminished the planes’

values and by how much, BLB’s evidence failed to move beyond conjecture that Jet

Linx’s breach “could” have negatively affected the airplanes’ value. The only

valuation figure at the district court’s disposal was that N400GK was sold “as is”

before trial for $425,000; however, no pre-buy inspection was performed, and BLB

did not provide any evidence as to how much the plane would have been worth with

proper documentation and tags. BLB likewise failed to present evidence to facilitate

a comparison of N789DJ’s value with and without proper documentation. As the

district court noted, “[t]he information provided by the parties render[ed] it

impossible for the court to determine diminution in value for either aircraft.” Because

BLB did not offer evidence of the reduced value of either airplane resulting from Jet

Linx’s failure to provide a complete set of maintenance records and parts tags, the

district court did not err in finding that BLB failed to prove its damages with

sufficient certainty.

-9-

Appellate Case: 14-3365 Page: 9 Date Filed: 12/14/2015 Entry ID: 4345956 
III.

For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the district court’s judgment for Jet

Linx on BLB’s claim for damages.

______________________________

-10-

Appellate Case: 14-3365 Page: 10 Date Filed: 12/14/2015 Entry ID: 4345956