FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT DE CEM B ER 5 , 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [D O N OT P UBL ISH]
IN TH E U NITE D S TAT ES C OUR T OF AP PE ALS F OR TH E E LE V EN TH C IR C U IT

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1245 4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 99-06688 -CV -SH RYDER COMM UNICATIONS, INC., a Fl or ida Co rp or at ion , PlaintiffCo unt er -D ef

en dantAppe llant, DA VI D A . R

YD ER , i n d i v i du a l l y, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us AMERIC AN TEL EPHONE AND TELEG RAPH, INCORP ORATED, a Fo re ignCo rp or at ion , D ef en dantCo unt er -C la im an tAppellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Ap peal from the Un ited S tates D istrict C ourt for th e Sout hern Distr ict of F lorida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (D ec em be r 5, 200 5)Th e L imi tatio ns of L ia bil ity pr ov isi on

in t he a g re e me nt p ro vid e s th at: 1 1 4 ( C) E X CE PT T O T H E E X T E N T PR O V I D E D I N SU B SE CT I O N 1 4 ( B )(1) AB OV E AT & T SHA L L NO T BE L IAB L E FO R I NC I DENT AL

I ND I REC T SPEC IAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DA M AGE OR FOR L OST PROFI TS S AVI NGS OR RE VEN UES OF ANY KI ND, W HET HEROR

NOT AT&T HA S B EEN A DV I SED OF TH E PO SSI B I L I TYOF SUC H D AM AG ES.
2 Be fo re HU LL , M A R C U S an d HI LL , C ir cu itJu dg es . PE R C URIAM : On appeal, Ry der Com

m unication s raises tw o issu es: (1) w hether the district
co urt e rr ed

in en fo rc ing the L im itatio ns o f L ia bil ity pr ovi sio n c ont ai ne d inthe

1 ag re em en t be tw ee n A T &T and R y de r Co m m uni catio ns; and ( 2) w he the r the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in lim iti ng D av id R

y de r’ s te sti m ony

a t tri al
. A ft er

r ev ie wand
o r a l ar g u me n t , w e a f

f i rm. W ith regard to the Lim itations of L iabilityprovisio n, the parties a gree that N ewJe rs ey

lawappl ie s. U nde r N ewJe rs ey law , the L im itatio ns o f L ia bil ity provisi on is un enforcea

ble onlyif A T&T ’ s conduct is “ willful and wanton .” T es sle r & S on, I nc . v. S oni tr ol S ec . S y s. of N
. N
. J. , I nc . , 497 A
. 2d 5 30, 533 ( N
. J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1985 ). The N ewJersey

Suprem e Court has defined “ willful and wanton ” as fo llo w s: [I ] t m us t appe ar

that the de fe ndant w ithkno w le dge of e xis tin g co ndi tio ns, and c onsc iou s f ro m suc h kn ow le dge that i nj ur y w ill li kely3

or pr oba bly r es ult f ro m his co nduc t, an d w ithr ec kle ss i ndi ff er en ce to the co nse que nc es , c onsc iou sly and i nte nti ona lly

doe s so m e w ro ngf

ul a ct or om its to dis ch ar ge som e duty w hic h pr oduc es the inj ur iou s r es ult
. McL aughlin v. Rova F arm s, I nc., 266 A.2d 284, 293 (N. J. 1970). T he dis tr ic t c ourt de te rm ine d th at A T &T ’ s “ er

ro rs m ay a m ount to ne gli ge nt, or even grossly

negligent, perform ance of its duties und er the [ contract] , but they do n ot r ise to the le ve l of spe ci fi c int en t r equir ed , und er N ewJe rs ey

law , to vit ia te a valid lim itation o f liability clause. ” W e agre e, and conclude that the dis trict
co urt di d no t e rr

in gr an tin g part ia l sum

m ar y j udgm en t onA T &T ’ s c la im that the Lim itations of L iabilityprovisio n was e nforceable. A s to the iss ue of

w he the r the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in ex cl udi ng s om e of D av id R y de r’ s te sti m ony

a t tri al , w e co nc lud e that the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse its discretion in excluding David Ry der’ s propos ed expert testim ony . See United St at es v. F ra zi er , 387 F
. 3d 1 244, 125 8 ( 11 Ci r. 200 4) ( enbanc ) (s ta tin g th at thi s th Court review s a “ district court’ s decisions regar ding the adm issib ility of expert te sti m ony and the r el ia

bil ity of an e xpe rt opi nio n” f

or an a buse of dis cr et ion , and that “ it is b y

nowa xio m at ic that a

dis tr ic t c ourt e nj oy s ‘ co nsi de ra ble le ew ay ’ in
m aking th ese determ ination s”) (c itation o m itted). F urtherm ore, to the extent that D av id R y de r’ s pr opos ed

te sti m ony

w as arg uably

lay in na tur e, w e co nc lud e that,4

ba se d onthe r ec or d and the arg um en ts p re se nte d by the part ie s indis tr ic t c ourt, the re is no r ev er sib le e rr or in the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r

uli ngs. F o r a l l th e ab o v e r e a s o n s , w e a f f i rm. AFFIRMED.