Reversed and Rendered and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed 

December 20, 2018.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-17-00213-CV

CARGOTEC CORP., MACGREGOR USA, LNC. AND CARGOTEC USA, 

INC., Appellants 

V.

LOGAN INDUSTRIES, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 506th Judicial District Court 

Waller County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 12-12-21726 

C O N C U R R I N G O P I N I O N 

I write separately to address damages. I agree with the majority that Logan 

failed to present evidence that its damages were caused by Cargotec. I do not agree 

that Logan’s expert, Robert Hancock, failed to present evidence to support his 

opinions as to Logan’s lost profits. 

The majority states that “[b]ecause Hancock’s calculations are predicated on 
2

speculative and unsupported gross profit goals contained in Logan’s business plan,” 

Hancock’s testimony is unreliable and no evidence of damages. I disagree with 

Cargotec’s characterization that Hancock’s opinions “rested entirely” on Logan’s 

gross profit goals. I similarly disagree with the weight given by the majority to the 

gross profit goals. 

Hancock testified that the scope of his review included, in addition to the 

business plan, Logan’s tax returns, hundreds, if not thousands, of pages of financial 

statements, the employee roster, and historical records. Hancock also interviewed 

Logan’s management team and conducted outside economic and industry research. 

As to the business valuation, Hancock testified that he did not look at projections 

exclusively. He also looked at current financial conditions. He also testified that 

there is nothing wrong with using management projections of future profits if they 

can be substantiated: “You just don’t blindly take [management projections] and say, 

(snaps fingers), ‘Here you are.’ That’s just math. There’s a thought process that goes 

behind that, the math.” See VingCard A.S. v. Merrimac Hosp. Sys., Inc., 59 S.W.3d 

847, 863-64 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. denied) (holding expert’s 

projections were not speculative because they were based on objective facts, figures, 

and data in light of expert’s many years of experience and plaintiff’s customer base 

and marketing capabilities). In response to the question “Did you, in this case, just 

blindly take management projections in reaching your opinions concerning lost 

profits and lost business value?” he answered, “No.” 

Based on Hancock’s testimony presented at trial, I cannot join the majority in 

concluding that Hancock’s lost profit damages valuation is predicated entirely on 

bare assumptions of projected profits in Logan’s business plan. I would conclude 

that Hancock’s testimony provides some evidence that would support a jury finding 

of lost profits. See ERI Consulting Eng’rs, Inc. v. Swinnea, 318 S.W.3d 867, 877 
3

(Tex. 2010) (“[U]ncertainty as to the fact of legal damages is fatal to recovery, but 

uncertainty as to the amount will not defeat recovery.”) (quoting Sw. Battery Corp. 

v. Owen, 131 Tex. 423, 428, 115 S.W.2d 1097, 1099 (1938)). For this reason, I 

concur. 

 

 /s/ Martha Hill Jamison

 Justice 

Panel consists of Justices Jamison, Wise, and Jewell (Wise, J., majority).