2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

6-20-2008 

# W ar t si l a N S D N

A Inc v . Hi l l Intl Inc
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 06-3595

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin
. C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" W a r tsi l a N S D NA Inc v

. H i l l In tl Inc " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 934. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/934H o n . A rt h u r L

. A larcó n , S en ior Ju d g e, U n it ed S tat es C o u rt * of A ppeal s fort he N i nt h C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. P RE CE DE NT I AL
UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 06- 3595

W ARTS I LA NS D NO RTH AM ERI CA, I NC.

v. H IL L IN T E R N A T IO N A L , IN C ., T hi r d- Par t yPl ai nt i ff v. JO H N H . C L E G G , E S Q U IR E ; DA PHN E M CN UTT, ESQU I RE; C H A F F E , M C C A L L , P H IL L IP S , T O L E R & S A R P H Y , L .L .P ., T h ird -P a rtyD e f e n d a n ts
H ill I n te rn a tio n a l, I n c ., A ppel l ant

O n A ppeal fr om t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey

( D

. C

. C i vi l A ct i on N o. 99- cv- 04565) ( H onor abl e J os eph H

. R odr i guez)

A r gued A pr i l 16, 2008
Be f o r e : S L OVI T E R, J OR DAN a n d AL AR CÓ N , * C i r cui tJ udges2 ( Fi l ed J une 20, 2008 )

D avi d L

. B r averm an ( A r gued) B r averm an K as key 1650 M ar ketSt r eet O ne Li ber t yPl ace , 21s tFl oor Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103
M

. Fr ance s R y an J ames I

. D ow nes C hr i s t opherC

. L und Dec h e r tLLP 2929 A r ch St r eet 18t h Fl oor , C i r a C ent er Phi l adel phi a, PA 19104
A tto rn e y s f

o r A p p e llan ts
R i char d E

. B r ennan M i chae l O

. A del m an ( A r gued) D rin k e r, B id d le & R e a th 500 C ampus D r i ve Fl or ham P ar k, N J 07932
A t t or ney s forA ppel l ee K athl een O

. B arnes M a rk A . S g a rla ta C hr i s t opherJ

. B r as co C hr i s t opherM

. A nzi dei ( A r gued) W at t , T i eder , H offa r & Fi t z g e r a l d , LLP 8405 G r eens bor o D r i ve, Sui t e 100 M cLean, V A 22102
A t t or ney s forA m i cus C ur i ae - A ppel l antC ons t ruct i on M anage m entA s s oci at i on of A m er i ca, I nc.

____3 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

A L A R C Ó N , C i r cui tJ udge.
I
H i l l I nt ernat i onal , I nc. ( “H i l l ”) appea l s fr om t he deni al of a pos t

- t r i al m ot i on i tcal l ed a “ M ot i on t o M ol d t he V er di ctand Ent er J udgm en t Consi s t entw i t h t he Par t i es ’ W r i t t en C ont r act ” ( “the M o tio n ” ). H ill w a s f

o u n d liab le f

o r n e g lig e n c e a n d b re a c h o f its contr act w i t h W ar t s i l a N SD N or t h A m er i ca, I nc. ( “W ar t s i l a”)

. T he j uryaw arded W art si l a $2 , 04 7, 95 2 in dam ages. H i l l fi l ed i t s M ot i on, r eques t i ng t hat t he D i s t r i ctC our tent er ju d g m e n t in f

a v o r of H ill c o n sis ten t w ith a n e x c u lp a to ryc lau se in the C o n su lt ing A g ree m en t ( “A g ree m en t”). T h e D istri ct C o u rt deni ed the M ot i on. Fi r s t , t he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded thatt he e x c u l p a t o r yc l a u s e wa s u n e n f o r c e a b l e u n d e rM a r y l a n d l a w. Second, t he D i s t r i ct C our t concl uded t hat t he dam ages aw ar ded by t he j ur yw ere d ir ectdamages , and ther efor e notbarr ed byt he excul pat or ycl aus e. W e w i l l vaca t e t he orde r deny i ng t he M ot i on a n d re m a n d th is m a tter to th e D istric t C o u r t f o r a re trial s o lely reg ard ing the da m ag es t h at are d u e t o W artsi la b ec a u s e o f H il l’ s b re a c h o f

c o n tra c t.
II
T he event s under l y i ng t hi s l i t i gat i on ar os e outof a c ont r act ent er ed i nt o byW ar t s i l a and H i l l on J anuary 24, 1995. W ar t s i l a, an engi neer i ng and cons t ruct i on company , hi r ed H i l l, a c ons t ruct i on cons ul t i ng fi r m , t o pr ovi de cons ul t i ng s er vi ces fort he cons t ruct i on of a pow erpl antW artsi l a w as bui l di ng i n N ej apa, E l Sal vador (“P rojec t”).
In Ju ly1 9 9 4 , W a rtsila D ies e l, In c ., th e p re d e c e ss o r to W ar t s i l a, ent er ed i nt o a contr actw i t h C oas t al Sal vador i an Lt d. ( “C oas t al ”) , w her ei n W ar t s i l a agr eed t o des i gn, engi neer , pr ocur e, cons t ruct , s t ar t up, and t es ta di es el engi ne pow erpl anti n N ej apa, E l Sal vador

. A tt he t i m e, W ar t s i l a’ s bus i nes s pr i m ar i l yi nvol vedH i l l r efe r s t o t hi s cl aus e as bot h a l i m i t at i o n of r emedi es 1 and a l i m i t at i on of damages cl aus e. W ar t s i l a gene r al l yr efe r s t o t he cl aus e as an exc ul pat or ycl aus e, as w e w il l, s t r i ct l yfor conveni en ce and w i t houti nt endi ng t he name t o carr yany su b sta n tiv e leg a l im p lica tio n . T h e D istric t C o u rt n o ted th a t: H i l l di s put ed w hethert he cl aus e i s a l i m i t at i on of r emedi es cl aus e oran exc ul pat or ycl aus e; how ever , i ts ugges t s t hat b e c a u se “ e v e n b ro a d e x c u lp a to ryc lau se s a re ro u tin e ly e n f o r c e d u n d e rM a r yl a n d l a w , ” t h a ti ti s e s s e n t i a l l y a d istin c tio n w ith o u t d if f e re n c e . (D e f ’s M o ti o n to M o ld V erdi ct , p. 12

. ) T herefore, t he C ou rt w i l l refert o the cl ause ati s s ue i n t hi s m ot i on as an “e xcul pat or y cl aus e” for eas e of refer ence a nd con si st ency , w i t ho ut r eading i nto t hat phrase anys peci al m eani ng. 4 t he s al e and mai nt enanc e of di es el engi nes . W ar t s i l a s ubcontr act ed t he cons t ruct i on P roj ectt o ot herent i t i es , i ncl udi ng B l ack a nd V eat ch I nt ernat i onal ( “B V I ”)

. T he Pr oj ectqui ckl yfell behi nd sch ed u le, resu lt ing in n u m e rou s d ispu tes b etw ee n W artsi la, B V I, and C oas t al

. A s a r es ul t , W ar t s i l a s oughta cons t ruct i on cons ul t ant th a t co u ld p ro v id e a d v ice a n d m a n a g e m e n t f o r th e P rojec t. O n J anuary18, 1995, H i l l s ubm i t t ed a pr opos al fort he c o n su lti n g p o sitio n . It rec o m m e n d e d th a t R ich a rd L e F e b v re , a H ill se n io r c o n su ltan t, be a ss ig n e d to th e P rojec t. A tta c h e d to th is pr opos al w as L eFebvr e’s resu m e, w h ich re p rese n ted t hatL eFebvr e: (1 ) h a d re c e iv e d a B .S

. in e lec trica l e n g in e e rin g f ro m P e n n sy lv a n ia S tate U niver si t y(“Penn S t at e”) i n 1 96 6; ( 2) had e arned a B

. A

. in busine ss ad m inistrati o n fro m D u q u esn e U n iversit yin 1 9 6 9 ; ( 3 ) had tak e n c o u rse s in b u sin e ss law a t th e U n iv e rsityo f N o rth F lo rid a in 1983; and ( 4) w as r egi s t er ed and l i cens ed as a p rof essi onal e n g in e e r i n P e n n s y lv a n ia , N e w Y o rk , a n d M a s s a c h u s e tts

. O n J anuary24 , 1 995, W ar t s i l a and H i l l ent er ed i nt o a w r i t t en consul t i ng agr eement( “A gr eement ”) t hati ncorpor at ed the J anuary18, 1995 pr opos al by r efe r ence . Pur s uant t o t he t er m s of t he A gr eement , H i l l as s i gned L eF eb vr e t o w or k as a s eni or cons ul t anton t he Pr oj ect

. T he A gr eem en t c ont ai ned an excul pat or ycl aus e, w hi ch s t at ed: 1W a r ts ila N S D N . A m ., In c . v . Hill I

n te r n ., I nc. , 4 3 6 F. Supp. 2d 6 9 0 , 6 9 4 n . 1 (D

. N

. J. 2 0 0 6 ). 5 I n no events hal l C ons ul t ant( H i l l ) be l i able i n contr actor to rt o r oth e rw ise to C o m p a n y (W a rtsila ) fo r a n y los t, delay ed o r di m i nis hed profi t s, revenu es, or opp ortun i t i es, l os s e s b y r e a s o n o f s h u t d o wn o r i n a b i l i t y t o u t i l i z e or c o m p lete th e P r ojec t, or a n yo th e r in c id e n tal, sp e c ial, ind ir ec t or co n seq u en ti al da m ag es o f an yk ind o r na ture w hat s oever r es ul t i ng fr om C ons ul t ant ’ s per for m ance or f a ilu re to p e rf

o rm se rv ice s u n d e r th is A g re e m e n t.
J

. A

. at66.
L eFebvr e w as qui ckl ypr om ot ed byW ar t s i l a t o t he pos i t i on o f P rojec t M a n a g e r, an d c o n tin u e d to w o rk o n th e P rojec t a s a H ill empl oy ee unt i l M ay25, 1995. O ne of LeFebvr e’ s r es pons i bi l i t i es w a s to a n a ly z e iss u e s b e a rin g o n p o ten tial c laim s a n d d e f e n se s in contr actual di s put es betw een W ar t s i l a and B V I

. O n J une 1, 1995, w i t h H i l l ’ s appr oval , W ar t s i l a hi r ed LeFebvr e di r ect l yas an i ndepende ntcontr act ort o pr ovi de as s i s t ance w i t h cons t ruct i on and c laim s m a n a g e m e n t o n th e P rojec t.
T he Pr oj ectw as notcompl et ed on t im e. In M ay1996, W ar t s i l a and BV I en tered i nt o arbi t r at i on befor e the A m er i can A rbi t r at i on A s s oci at i on. T he part i e s ma de del aycl ai m s agai ns tone anotherr el at i ng t o t he fa ctt hatthe P r oj ectw as notcompl et ed on t i m e, and thatC o astal h ad r efus ed t o payt he ea r l ycompl et i on bonus

. A l s o, eac h s i de cl ai m ed thati thad bee n for ced t o s pend m or e m oney t han ant i ci pat ed on t he w or k of t he P r oj ect due t o t he otherpart y ’s delay s. I n A ugus t1997, t he arbi t r at i on hear i ngs comm enc ed. L eFebvr e w as a key w i t nes s i n t he pr ocee di ngs due t o hi s ext ens i ve know l edge of

t he fa ct s under l y i ng t he poi nt s of cont ent i on betw een t he tw o par t i es . A ta Sept ember 8, 1997 arbi t r at i on pr ocee di ng, L eFebvr e w as ques t i oned aboutt he ac ademi c and pr o fe ssi onal cr edent i al s l i s t ed on hi s r es um e. T ow ar d t he end of t he di r ect test i m ony , W ar t s i l a bec ame aw ar e thatt her e w er e ques t i ons6 re g a rd in g L e F e b v re ’s e d u c a tio n a l an d p ro f e ss io n a l cr e d e n tials w hen cou nsel for B V I r equ est ed thatL eF ebv re exec u te a rel ease forbackgr ound aca dem ic i nfor m at i on. L at ert hatday , aft ert he p r o c e e d i n g s a d

j o u r n e d , L e F e b v r e a d m i t t e d t o W a r t s i l a ’ s a t t o r n e ys t hatt he s t at ement s on hi s r es um e conc erni ng hi s bu sine s s degr ee fr om D uques ne U ni ver s i t y( “D uques ne”) w er e notacc ur at e and t hatH i l l had as ked hi m t o over s t at e the ext entof hi s t r ai ni ng at D uques ne. T he nextm or ni ng, L eFebvr e r eques t ed a n d r ece i ved a revised resum e from H i l l

. Itom i t t ed an yrefer ence to a bu si ness d e g re e f ro m D u q u e sn e o r bu sin e ss law c o u rse s f ro m th e U n iv e rsity o f N o rth F lo rid a . It a lso m o d if ied th e d a te o n w h ich h e c laim e d to have r ece i ved an e l ectr i cal engi neer i ng deg ree fr om Penn St at e. W h e n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s r e s u m e d l a t e r t h a td a y, B V I ’ s a t t o r n e ys cr os s exami ned LeFebvr e r egar di ng t he i nconsi s t enci es betw een t he tw o r es um es . L eFebvr e t es t i fi ed that t he r evi s ed r es um e w as ac cu rate an d tru thf

u l. A fter B V I’s co u n sel ex p o sed L eF eb v re’s fal s e t es t i m ony , W ar t s i l a bega n i t s ow n i nves t i gat i on. B yt he c o n c lu sio n o f

th a t d a y ’s p ro c e e d in g s, W a rtsila c o n c e d e d th a t it uncover ed no evi dence t hatL eFebvr e h ad everr ece i ved an e n g in e e rin g d e g re e f

ro m P e n n S tate o r atten d e d a n yo f th e sc h o o ls l i s t ed on hi s fi r s tr es um e. W ar t s i l a also stat ed thati tfound no e v id e n c e L e F e b v re h a d b e e n lice n se d a s a p ro f e ss io n a l en g in e e r in ei t her N ew Y ork, P enn sy l van i a, or M assachuset t s. W ar t s i l a’ s couns el w i t hdr ew L eFebvr e’ s t es t i m ony i n l i ght of his perj ury . T he arbi t rat i on pan el grant ed W art si l a a shortreces s t o r es t ructur e i t s cas e. D ur i ng t hatt i m e, t he companyr e- exami ned m at er i al s pr epar ed byL eFeb v re a nd di s cover ed thathe had i m properl yaltere d o rig in a l “ c laim supp ort ” do cum ents

. C ons equent l y , W ar t s i l a w i t hdr ew cert ai n cl ai m s . O n M arc h 5, 1 9 9 8 , the a rb itratio n p a n e l is su e d a ju d g m e n t o f $ 4 .6 5 m ill io n in fa v o r of B V I.
O n S eptem ber 22, 1999 , W art si l a fi l ed thi s act i on aga in st H i l l t o r ecoup the l os s es it s us t ai ned bec aus e H i l l fur ni s hed a c o n su ltan t w ith a f

r a u d u len t re su m e . In its c o m p lain t, W a rtsila at t ri bu t ed the si ze of

t he arbi t rat i on aw ard t o L eF ebv re’ s fal se r es um e and t es ti m o n y . W ar t s i l a al l eged thr ee c aus es of ac t i on7 a g a in st H ill : (1 ) n e g lig e n c e ; (2 ) f ra u d ; an d (3 ) b re a c h o f

c o n tra c t. T he tr i al comm ence d on February14, 2006.
T h e ju ry f

o u n d n o f

ra u d b u t r e n d e re d a v e rd ict f o r W a rtsila on t he negl i gence and br eac h of contr actcl ai m s i n the am o u n tof $2, 047, 952. H i l l t hen fi led it s M o ti on. O n J une 28, 2008, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed H i l l ’ s m ot i on. T h e D is t r i ctC our thel d t hat t h e e x c u l p a t o r yc l a u s e wa s u n e n f o r c e a b l e u n d e rM a r y l a n d l a w. T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o found, i n t he al t ernat i ve, t hatt he damages incu rred b yW artsi la w ere d ir ec t, n o t co n seq u en ti al, an d thu s w ere notcover ed by t he exc ul pat or ycl aus e. H i l l fi l ed a t i m el yappea l of t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on deny i ng t he M ot i on. III “W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overt he di s tr i ct c o ur t ' s l egal det er m i nat i ons . ” B erg C hil l i ng Sys. , Inc. v. H ull C orp . , 3 6 9 F. 3d 745, 754 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. O ur s t andar d of r evi ew i s pl enaryw i t h r es pectt o w hethert he di s t r i ctcou rtappl i ed the ap p rop ri ate m ea su re of co n tr ac t d am ag es i n a l eg al sen se. I d. (cit ati o n s o m itted).
IV
A
H i l l cont ends t hatt he exc ul pat or ycl aus e s houl d be enf or ced beca us e i tdoes notfal l underanyof t he ex ce p ti o n s t o t he e n f o rc e m e n t o f

e x c u lp a to ry c l a u s e s u n d e r M a ryla n d la w . W e ag ree . T h e D istri ct C o u rterred in d eterm ining that the e x cu lpato ry cl aus e w as unenfor cea bl e. U nderM ary l and l aw , “[i ] n t he abs ence of l egi s l at i on t o t he c o n tra ry , ex c u lp a to r y cla u se s a re g e n e ra llyv a lid , an d th e p u b lic pol i cyof fr eedom of cont r act is bes ts er ved byenfor ci ng t he pr ovi s i ons of t he cl aus e. ” W olf v. Ford , 644 A

. 2d 522, 525 ( M d. 1994)

. I n W

o lf, th e C o u rt o f

A p p e a ls o f

M a ry lan d sta ted : It is q u ite p o ss ib le f

o r th e p a r ti e s e x p re ss lyto a g re e in advanc e thatt he def

endanti s underno obl i gat i on of car e forI ti s ar guabl e w hether , even i n t he absen ce o f t he 2 excul pat or ycl aus e, t he contr actual r es pons i bi l i t yt o pr ovi de a pr oper l ycr edent i al ed cons ul t antcoul d be the bas i s for a negl i gence cl ai m , butt hati s nota matt er w e nee d t o deci de on the br i efs befo re us. 8 t he benefitof t he pl ai nt i ff, and s hal l notbe l i abl e fort he cons equenc es of co n ductw hi ch w oul d ot herw i s e be negl igen t. T her e i s i n t he or di narycas e no publ i c pol i cy w h ich p re v e n ts th e p a rties f ro m c o n tra c tin g a s th e yse e f it. Id

. ( quot i ng W

. Page K eet on, etal

. , Pr os s er and K eet on on t he Law of Tort s , § 68 ( 5t h ed. 1984) )

. T hr ee e xcept i ons have be en iden ti fied w h ere the p u b li c intere st w il l r en d er a n ex cu lpato ry cl ause unen forceable: (1) w hen t he party prot ect ed b y th e cl ause i nt ent i onal l ycaus es har m or engage s i n act s of r eckl es s , w ant on, or gr os s negl i gence ; ( 2) w hen the bar gai ni ng pow erof one par t yt o t he contr acti s s o gr os s l y unequal s o as t o put t hat par t y at t he m er cyof t he ot he r ' s n e g l i g e n c e ; a n d ( 3 ) whe n t h e t r a n s a c t i o n i n v o l v e s t he p u b lic in te re s t. W

o lf , 6 4 4 A .2d at 525-26

. N on e of these exce pt i ons i s appl i cabl e her e. A lth o u g h the j u ryco n clud ed that H il l w as n eg li g en t, there w as no evi dence t hatH i l l engage d i n w i l l ful m i s cond u ct, s uch as

“ in te n tio n a l h a rm s ” o r “ th e m o re e x tr e m e f o rm s o f n e g lig e n c e , i.e ., r eckl es s , w ant on, orgr os s . ” Id

. at 525. A t t r i al , W ar t s il a a rgued that H il l v iolated t h e A g ree m en t b y co m m itti n g fra u d

. T h e ju ry expr essl yconcl uded i n i t s ver di ct , how ever , t hatH i l l had not comm i t t ed fr aud. T hi s fi ndi ng evi s cer at es anyar gu m entt hatt he excul pat or y cl aus e shoul d be di s r egar ded becaus e of t he natur e of H ill ’s a lleg e d m isc o n d u c t. 2
N o evi dence w as pr es ent ed tha tt he A gr eementw as t he r es ul tof undue i nfl uence orunequal bar gai ni ng pow er. H i l l and W ar t s i l a ar e mul t i nat i onal corpor at i ons t hatw er e repr es ent ed by exper i ence d bus i nes s m en and at t or ney s at t he t i m e t hey s i gned the A g re e m e n t.
W e al s o concl ude t hat t he “publ i c i nt er es t ” exce pt i on doesTh e Di s t r i ctC our t ’ s r el i ance on K l i ne i s m i spl aced b ecause 3 i ti s fac tual l ydi s t i ngui s habl e. I n K l i ne , t he excu l pator ycl ause pr ovi ded that“the ventur er s w oul d notbe l i abl e for‘ t hei ract i ons i n connec t i on w i t h t he J oi ntV entur e exc ept in the cas e of a ctual fr aud, gr os s negl i gence ordi s hones tconduct

. ’ ” K l i ne , 2 0 0 0 WL 33799690, at*40. T he K l i ne cour tfound t hatt his pr ovi s i on re f e rr e d to t o r t c o n c e p ts

. Id

. T he K l i ne cour ts t at ed that“i f t he parti es had i nt ended t o excul pat e themsel ves fr om l i abi l i t yfor futur e cl ai m s of bre ach of contr act , t hey w er e r equi r ed t o m ake that expr es s l y cl ear i n t he exc ul pat or ycl aus e. ” Id

. B eca us e the part i es i n K l i ne d id n o t m a k e it ex p re ss lyc lea r th a t th e yin ten d e d to excul pat e t hemsel ves fr om l i abi l i ty forfutur e cl ai m s of br eac h of contr act , t he cour ti n K l i ne hel d t hatt he exc ul pat or ycl aus e di d not lim it th e d e f

e n d a n t's lia b ility f

o r b re a c h o f

c o n tr a c t. Id

. T his case i s unl i ke K l i ne beca u se W ar t s i l a and H i l l m ade i texpr es s l ycl ear t hat t hey i nt ended t o l i m i t t hei r l i abi l i t y for br eac h of contr act

. T he excul pat or ycl aus e pr ovi des t hat "[ i ] n no event s hal l C ons ul t antbe li ab le in co n tr ac t or t o rto r oth erw ise. " J.A

. at 6 (e m p h asis ad d ed ). B eca us e W ar t s i l a and H il l m ade i texpr es s l ycl eart hatt hey in te n d e d to lim it th e irlia b ility f o r b re a c h o f

c o n tr a c t, K l i ne is di s t i ngui s habl e.

9 notappl yt o t he exc ul pat or ycl aus e. I tappea r s t hatt he D i str ic t C o u rtreli ed o n this ex ce p ti o n in d eterm ining that the e x cu lpato ry cl aus e w as unenfor cea bl e. I n t he O r derdeny i ng t h e M o ti on, t he D i s t r i ctC our tr el i ed on K lin e v . Kn ig h t, N o . 2 2 3 8 , 2 0 0 0 WL 33799690, at*3 8 (M d. C t

. Spec. A pp. D ec. 21, 2000) , fort he p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t “ e x c u l p a t o r y c l a u s e s d o n o t o p e r a t e t o b a rc l a i ms f o r p u re b r e a c h o f

c o n tr a c t.” W

a rts ila N S D N . A m ., In c . v. Hill 3 In te r n ., In c ., 436 F. Supp. 2d 690, 694 ( D

. N

. J

. 2006)

. T he D i s t r i ct C our texpl ai ned:
A t bot t o m, a n d a s f

o u n d b yt h e j u r y , Hi l l f

a i l e d t o p r ovi de W a r t s i l a wi t h t h e v e r y s e r vi c e i tc o n t r a c t e d t o p e r f o r m. D espi t e i t s l ang uag e, enfo rcem ent of t he ex culpat orycl ause wo u l d l e a d t o a r e p u g n a n tr e s u l t

– o n e t h a two u l d a l l o w a s er vi ce pr ovi dert o r eap the bene fi t o f a ne got i at ed agr eement i n t he abs ence of t he bar gai ned- forper for m ance .10 W hi l e the C our ti s aw ar e thatunambig u ous w r i t t en contr act s s houl d be enf or ced w i t houtr egar d t o t he c o n se q u e n c e s o f

th a t en f o rc e m e n t, b a se d o n th e a n a ly sis above, thi s C our tfi nds t hatM ary l and l aw w i l l notal l ow s uch a c l aus e t o be enf

or ced. Id

. at696- 97.
I n W o lf , t he courti dent ifi ed t r ans act i ons t hataff ectt he pu bli c i nter estas t hos e i nvol vi ng: th e p e rf o rm a n c e o f

a p u b lic s e rv ice o b lig a tio n , e.g ., p u b lic u til itie s, c o m m o n c a rrie rs, in n k e e p e rs, a n d p u b lic w ar ehous emen. I tal s o i ncl udes t hos e tr ans act i o ns , not r eadi l ys us cept i bl e t o defi ni t i o n o rb r o a d c at egor i zat i on, t hat are so im p o rt a n t t o the p u b li c g o o d that an ex cu lpato ry cl au s e w oul d be " pat ent l yoffe ns i ve, " s uch that"the comm on s ens e of the ent i r e com m uni t y w oul d .

. . pr onounce it" in v a lid

. W o lf , 6 4 4 A

. 2 d at 52 6 (i n terna l qu o tat ion o m itted).
“Thi s s tand ard i s a s t r i ctone, i n keepi ng w i t h ourgener al re lu c tan c e to in v o k e th e n e b u lo u s p u b lic in ter e st to d istu rb p riv a te contr act s . ” Id

. a t 5 2 6

. T h e c o n tra c t b e tw e e n H ill a n d W a rtsila d id not i nvol ve an es s ent i al publ i c s er vi ce s uch thatt he enf or cementof t h e e x c u l p a t o r yc l a u s e wo u l d b e “ p a t e n t l y o f f e n s i v e . ” No rd o we bel i eve thaton t hi s r ecor d t he cour t s of M ary l and w oul d concl ude t hatcons t ruct i on cons ul t i ng has t he s ame br oad publi c im p actas ot herbus i nes s es that have been f ound es s ent i al t o t he publ i c good, such as i nn keep ers , pu bli c uti l i t i es, com m on carr i ers , or schoo l s. S e e , e .g ., S e ig n e u r v . N a t’ l F itn e s s In s t., I

n c ., 752 A

. 2d 631, 640 ( M d. C t. Spec. A pp. 2000) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) ( “N FI does not provide an essenti al pu bli c ser vice such t hat an exculpat orycl ause w oul d be ‘ pat ent l yoffe ns i ve’ t o t he ci t i zens of M ary l and. T he s er vi ces offe r ed bya hea l t h cl ub ar e notof gr eati m por t ance orof p ra c tica l n e c e ss ity to th e p u b lic as a w h o le .

. . . N o r is a h e a lth cl ub anyw her e nea ras s oci al l yi m por t ant as i ns t i tut i ons or bus i nes s es s uch as i nnkeepe r s , publ i c ut i l i t i es , comm on carr i er s , or11 sch o o ls. ”).
Fi nal l yand s i gni fi cant l y , t he exc ul pat or ycl ause di d not depr i ve W ar t s i l a of the ent i r e benef i t of t he contr act , as t he D i s t r i ct C our tbel i eved. It di d notel i m i nat e al l contr actual damages but i ns t ead s ai d t hatcert ai n t ypes of contr actual damages w oul d notbe r ecove r abl e. I n s hor t , t he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n det er m i ni ng t hat t he exc ul pat or ycl aus e w as unenfor cea bl e. B
H ill a lso m a in tain s th a t t h e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in det er m i ni ng t hatt he damages aw ar ded by t he j ur yw er e di r ectand notcons equent i al

. H i ll arg u es t hatt he damages s oughtby W artsi la are b arred b ythe e x cu lpato ry c la u se b ec au se th eyare “inc iden tal , sp ec ial , ind ir ec t o r co n seq u en ti al. ” T h e D istri ct C o u rt e rre d in d e ter m in in g th a t all o f th e d a m a g e s s o u g h t b yW a rtsila w e re d ire c t.
P rio r to trial, H ill f

iled a m o tio n to d ism iss , as se rtin g , in par t , t hatt he exc ul pat or ycl aus e pr ecl uded W ar t s i l a fr om r ecove r i ng anydamages on t he b rea ch of cont r actcl ai m . T he D i s t r i ctC our t deni ed t he mot i on t o di s m i s s , butdi d notr es ol ve the ques t i on w hethert he exc ul p at or ycl aus e w as enfor cea bl e. T he D i s t r i ctC our texpl ai ned that beca us e W ar t s i l a brought a cl ai m for fr aud, t he C our tcoul d notdet er m i ne at that t i m e w hethert he e x c u lp a to ryc lau se w a s e n f o r c e a b le. S o m e w h a t at o d d s w ith its l at er conclusi on , t he C ou rtreas on ed as fo l l ow s: O n t hei r fac e, t hes e pr ovi s i ons cl ear l y oper ate to bar pl ai nt i ff’ s br eac h of contr act cl ai m , s i nce i ti s notgr ounded i n negl igence and the al l eged da m ages do notfl ow fr om p e r s o n a l i n

j u r y o r p r o p e r t y d a ma g e s . Un d e rM a r y l a n d l a w,
“ [ i ] n t h e a b s e n c e o f

f r a u d , d u r e s s , mi s t a ke o rs o me coun terva i l i ng publ i c pol i cy , cour t s s houl d enfor ce the ter m s o f u n a m b ig u o u s w ritten c o n tra c ts w ith o u t re g a rd to the cons equenc es of enf or cement

. ” C al om i r is v. W oods , 3 5 3 M d

. 4 2 5 , 4 4 5 , 7 2 7 A

. 2 d 3 5 8 , 3 6 8 (19 9 9 ). H o w ev er, w h e n th e a g g rie v e d p a r ty h a s s h o w n it w a s d e c e iv e d in to acc ept i ng t he contr act , contr actual l i m i t at i ons on j u d ici alT he fol l ow i ng i s t he compl et e l i s t of t he r evi s ed damages 4 s u b m i t t e d t o t h e j u r y: 1. A A A R epor t i ng C o. ( $2, 943. 20) 2. A i r fl ow Sci ence s C orp ( $24, 263. 23) 3. A m er i can A rbi t r at i on A s s oci at i on ( $62, 603. 63) 4. B aker, S t erchi , C ow den & R i ce’s L egal Fees (K ansas) ( $60, 520. 15) 5. W

. C

. B akew el l ( A rbi t r at i on) ( $1, 680. 85) 6. B l ack & V eat ch I nt ernat i onal ( $5, 500, 000. 00) 7. C ar l t on Fi el ds – Fl or i da Law Fi r m ( $4, 166. 95) 8. C er quet t i , J eff

– Pow erPl ant s W D U S ( $886. 47) 9. D oubl e Tre e H ot el B i l l s ( $110, 110. 27) 10. E agl e Legal Ser vi ces ( $8, 172. 96) 11. E duar do E chaga r ruga ( $9, 952. 76) 12. H D H C ons t ruct i on C ons ul t ant s ( $144, 879. 75) 13. M i chae l H afl i ng ( K ans as ) ( $5, 660. 55) 14. H ues by& A s s oci at es ( $57, 057. 75) 15. A W H ut chi ns on & A s s oci at es , I nc. ( $83, 959. 11) 16. I K O N ( $3, 830. 19) 12 r emedi es w i l l notbe enf or ced .

. . [P] l ai n ti ff

has s t at ed a claim fo r frau d

. M o reo v er, plainti ff all eg es th at de fe n d an t’ s fr aud i nduced i tt o sign H i l l ’ s cons ul t i ng contr act , w hi ch in c o rp o ra ted b yre f

e re n c e th e a ss ig n m e n t o f L e F e b v re to W ar t s i l a’ s pr oject. C om pl

. ¶¶ 34- 36. A ccor di ngl y , t he l i abi l i t yl i m i t at i ons i n t he contr act w il l notoper at e att he di s mi s s a l s t a g e t o b a r p l a i n t i f f ’ s c l a i m f

o r b r e ach of c o n tr a c t.
J

. A

. at86- 87.
T he D i s t r i ct C our ts ubm i t t ed an i ns t ruct i on t o t he j ur yt hat listed th e d a m a g e s so u g h t b y W a rtsila

. T h e p rim a ry item s o n th is li st inc lud ed the en ti re am o u n t o f the arb itrati o n aw ard p aid to B V I, W ar t s i l a’ s at t or ney s ’ fee s i ncurr ed i n co n n ect i on w i t h t he arb itrati o n an d su b seq u en t l it igation , the f e e s p aid to ex p ert w i t nes s es att he arbi t r at i on, t he cos tof num er ous cour tr epor t i ng s er vi ces us ed i n arbi t r at i on, and W ar t s i l a’ s hot el bi l l s and ot her expens es r el at i ng t o arbi t r at i on. J

. A

. at 254- 55. T h e j udge 417. J ohns on, A l l i s on & H or d, P. A

. ( $16, 634. 08) 18. R i char d L eFebvr e ( $298, 665. 90) 19. R ober tM addox ( $2, 999. 39) 20. M cG ui r e, W oods , B at t l e & B oot h, L L P ( $6, 752. 21) 21. O ber , K al er , G r i m es & Shi ver( $254, 049. 46) 22. J uan R adul ovi c ( $4, 089. 32) 23. Sabl e, M akr off & G us ky , P. C

. ( $420. 00) 24. U R S G r ei ner( $36, 075. 51) 25. X A C T D upl i cat i ng ( $1, 039. 57) 26. X E R O X C orpor at i on ( $4, 917. 35) 27. C haff

e M cC al l ’ s L egal B i l l s ( $621, 976. 63) 28. H i l l I nt ernat i onal ( $188, 917. 36) 29. A l l en N or t on ( $1, 077. 49) T ot al : $7, 518, 502. 09 J. A

. at 25 4 -55 (pre v iou s inc o rrect ca lculati o n s o m itted). T h e pe rce n tage s ref

erred to pertain t o th e c o n tri b u tory 5 negl i gence cl ai m agai ns tW ar t s i l a. 13 i ns t ruct ed the j ur yon damages w i t houtdi ffe rent i at i ng betw een di r ect or cons equent i al damages

. I n i ns t ruct i ng t he j ur y , t he j udge s t at ed:
N o w , if y o u a re a w a rd in g d a m a g e s, it sh o u ld b e th e f u ll amount of t he damages

. T he per cent age que s t i on i s one of l aw t hat ’ s t aken car e of l at er . So i f t her e i s t o be a da m age aw ard , y o u d o n ’tre d u c e itfo r t h e p erc en tage s, the C o u rt d o e s th a t. Itsh o u ld sim p lyb e th e to tal a m o u n t. 5
T ran script o f R ec o rd at 1 0 2 , W a rts ila N S D N . A m ., In c . v. Hill I nt er n . , Inc. , 4 3 6 F

. S u p p . 2 d 6 9 0 (D

. N

. J. 2 0 0 6 ) (N o . 2 6 6 ). F urt her, t he ju ry v erdi ctform did not as k the j uryt o d i st i ng uis h betw een da m ages aw ar ded forbreach of c ont r act , fr aud, or negl i gence , or as k t he j ur y t o i t emi ze dam ages . Q ues t i on t en of the j uryverdi ctform st at es: I f y ou have a ns w er ed thatD efe ndant ’ s negl igen ce , br eac h of contr act , orfr aud w as a proxi m at e ca us e of the damages s us t ai ned byPl ai nt i ff, w hat amount , i f any , w oul d ful l yand fai r l ycompensa t e Pl ai nt i ff?T h e t er m s “s peci al damages ” and “ cons equent i al 6 d a m a g e s ” u s u a lly a re v ie w e d a s s yn o n y m o u s . See 3 D an B

. D ob bs, Law of R em edi es § 12. 2( 3) , at 3 8 ( 2d ed. 1993) ( “[S] peci al damages [ar e] al s o r efe r r ed t o as cons equent i al damages and the term s are u sed interch an g ea b ly

. ”). 14 J

. A

. at257.
T h e ju rya w a rd e d $ 2 ,0 4 7 ,9 5 2 in to tal d a m a g e s. In its p o sttr ial M o ti o n , H il l argu ed that b ec au se a ll th e d am ag es w ere cons equent i al , t heyw er e b arred byt he exc ul pat or ycl aus e. T he D i s t r i ctC ourt d en ie d t he mot i on bas ed on i t s concl us i on t hatt he damages aw ar ded byt he j ur yw er e notcons equent i al

. T he D i s t r i ct C our terr ed in de ny i ng t he M ot i on. M ary l and court s hol d “that damages w hi ch a pl ai nt i ff m ay r ecove r for br each o f c ont r act i ncl ude bot h t hos e w hi ch m ay fai r l y and r eas onabl ybe cons i der ed as ar i si ng natur al l yfrom t he b reach (general dam ag e s) a nd t ho se w hi ch mayr eas onabl ybe s up p o sed t o have be en i n t he cont empl at i on of bot h par t i es at t he t i m e of m aki ng of t he contr act (s p e c ia l d a m a g e s ).” A ddr es s o g ra ph- Mul t igr aph C or

p. v. Zi nk , 6 329 A

. 2d 28, 33- 34 ( M d. 1974)

. G ener al damages ar e “da m ages t hatw oul d fol l ow anybr eac h of s i m i l archarac t eri n t he us ual cour s e of e vent s . ” 24 W

i l l s t on on C on t ract

s § 6 4 :12 (4th ed

. 2 0 0 2 ). “C ons equent i al damages

. . . i ncl ude thos e damages t hat , al t hough n o t an in v ariab le re s u lto f e v eryb rea ch o f th is sort, w ere r e a s o n a b l yf

o r e s e e a b l e o rc o n t e mp l a t e d b yt h e p a r t i e s a tt h e t i me t he contr actw as ent er ed i nt o as a pr obabl e r es ul t of a br eac h. ” I d. “These, to o , m us tbe pr oxi m at el ycaus ed byt he br eac h, and the d if f e re n c e is th a t th e y d o n o t alw a y s f o llo w a b re a c h o f

th is par t i cul archar act er . ” I d.
T he Fi ft h C i r cui thas addr es s ed the di s t i nct i on betw een g e n e ra l an d c o n se q u e n tial d a m a g e s in a f a c tu a llysi m ilar c a se in R eynolds Metal

s C o. v. W

es t i nghous e E l ec. C or

p. , 758 F. 2d 1073 ( 5t h C i r . 1985)

. I n R eynolds , W es t i nghous e El ectr i c C orpor at i on co n tr ac ted w ith R ey n o lds M etal C o m p an yto se ll the latt er a tr a n s f o rm e r. Id

. at1074. T he contr actpr i ce i ncl uded n otj us tt he m achi nery , b u ta “c om pet ent ” s er vi ce e ngi neer , pr ovi ded by W e s tin g h o u s e , w h o w o u ld in s ta ll it. I d. T he contr actdi s cl ai m ed15 l i abi l i t y for “s peci al , i ndi r ect , i nci dent al , o r cons equent i al damages

. ” I

d. W es t i nghous e s entan i nexper i ence d engi neerw ho f a ile d to in s ta ll th e tr a n s f o rm e r p ro p e rl y . Id

. a t 1075. T he equi pm entl at ers uffe r ed damage, i n par t as a r es ul tof t he i m pr oper in s ta lla tio n . Id

. R e yn o ld s th e n su e d W e stin g h o u se c laim in g th a t it had br eac hed the contr actbyfai l i ng t o pr ovi de a c om pet ent e n g in e e r. Id

. at1076. R eynol ds s oughtcompensa t i on t o r epai rt he t r ans for m er . A j ur yfound t hatW es t i nghous e had br eac h ed t he c o n tra c t, an d a w a rd e d R e yn o ld s th e v a lu e o f th e tra n sf

o rm e r w ith in te re s t. Id

. at1077.
O n appea l , W es t i ng h o u s e obj ect ed t o t he amount of t he d a m a g e s, n o tin g th a t a p ro v isio n o f th e c o n tra c t d isc laim e d liab ili ty for“s peci al i ndi r ect , i nci dent al and conse quent i al damages

. ” Id

. at 1078. T he Fi ft h C i r cui tagr eed w i t h W es t i nghous e. I tconcl uded t hatR eynol ds w as notent i t l ed t o t he val ue o f the t r ans for m er b e c a u s e th a t w a s a c o n s e q u e n tia l d a m a g e . Id

. at 1 0 8 0

. T h e C o u rt s t at ed:
W e r ecogni ze thati tw as a for es eeabl e cons equenc e of W es t i nghous e' s br eac h of contract thatt he al ar m s y s t em m ig h t f a il t o d e tec t g ro u n d c u rre n t. It w a s a lso f o re se e a b le that thi s fai l ur e mi ghti n tur n per m i tbur ni ng w i t hi n t he t r an s f o r me rt o o c c u ru n b e k n o wns tt o Re yn o l d s a n d t h us ex ac erb ate the d am ag e d o n e to t h e tran sfo rm er if sh o rt cir c u it ing o cc u rred

. S u ch fo rese ea b le da m ag es a re or di nar i l yr ecove r abl e under an expe ct ancyt heory , butt hey ar e neve r t hel es s cons equent i al l os s es and do not r efl ectt he di ffe r ence - i n- v alue dam ages at t r i but abl e t o t he or i gi nal br eac h of contr act

. T he pr oxi m at e ca us e i nqui r ys ubm i t t ed t o t he j ur yher e ther efor e ca s tt oo br oad a ne t and ca ptur ed m o re th a n th o se d a m a g e s c o m p e n sa b le u n d e r th e c o n tra c t.
I d. (c itatio n s o m itt e d ). T h e F if th C ir c u it co n c lu d e d th a t th e o n ly d a m a g e s f

o r w h ich R e yn o ld s c o u ld re c o v e r w a s th e “ f e e th a t w o u ld have been char ged R eynol ds bya compet entand pr oper l ypr epar ed s er vi ce e ngi neerl es s t he mar ketval ue of the s er vices that[t he s er vi ce e ngi neer ] pr ovi ded. ” I d.
H e re , as p a rt o f

a se rv ice c o n tra c t, H ill p ro v id e d W a rtsila16 w ith a c o n su ltan t. T h e ju ryf o u n d th a t H ill ’s a c tio n s b re a c h e d its c o n t r a c t

. A s i n d i c a t e d b y R eynolds , the a m o u n t p a id b yW a rtsila for L eF ebv re’ s services , l ess the actual value, i f a n y , o f t ho se s e r v i c e s , c o n s t i tu t e s d i r e c td a ma g e s . Al l o f t he r e ma i n i n g i t e ms s u b mi t t e d t o t h e j u r yi n W a r t s i l a ’ s l i s to f d a ma g e s , t hough for es eea bl e, ar e nott he t ype of da m ages t hat“w oul d fol l ow any br eac h of s i m i l archar act er in the us ual cour s e of e vent s . ” 24 W i l l s t on on C on tract

s § 64: 12 ( 4t h ed. 2002)

. R ather , s om e of the damages s ubm i t t ed t o t he j ur yr es ul t ed fr om a l o ng s er i es of cont i ngentevent s , eac h one depe ndentupon s peci fi c dec i s i ons m ade byW ar t s i l a bas ed upon t he fac t s and i nt er es t s befor e i t att he t i m e. W ar t s i l a’ s d am ag es ar e more cl ear l ycons equent i al t han t hos e i n R eynolds beca us e, w hi le th e damages i n R eynolds arose im m ed iat elyu p o n W esti n g h o u se’s b re a c h o f c o n tr ac t, W artsi la’s damages ar os e y ear s aft ert he al l eged br eac h and onl y as a r es ul tof n u m ero u s interve n ing ac ts by W artsi la, inclu d ing h ir ing L eF eb v re di r ect l yas an empl oy ee. T he D i s t r i ct C o ur terr ed i n hol di ng t hat“the damages re c o v e re d b yW a rtsila

– in c lu d in g : (1 ) th e c o sts a ss o c ia ted w ith h av i ng t he H i l l cons ul t antas an i nt egr al par tof t he or i gi nal arbi t r at i on; and ( 2) t he cos t s as s oci at ed w ith r e- arbi t r at i ng i n an at t emp tt o r e p a i rt h e d a ma g e c a u s e d b yl o s i n g a l l t e s t i mony as s oci at ed w i t h t he H i l l cons ul t ant– ar e di r ect damages

. ” W ar t s i l a, 4 3 6 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 7 0 1

. T h e D istric t C o u rt c o m p a r e d th e d a m a g e s a w a rd e d to W ar t s i l a t o t hos e at i s s ue i n 21s tC ent ur y Proper t i es C o. v. C a rp en te rI

ns ul at i on & Coat i ngs C o. , 6 9 4 F. Su p p . 1 4 8 ( D. M d. 1988)

. I n 21s t C ent ur

y Proper t i es , t he pl ai nt i ffs br oughtcl ai m s of m i sr epresent at i on , b re a c h o f con t ractand breach o f exp res s w arr antyagai ns t t he def endantaft erfourof t he r oofs i thad i ns t al l ed bega n t o l eak. T he pl ai nt i ffs s oughtt o r ecove rt he cos tof re p la c in g th e d e f

e c tiv e ro o f

, ra th e r th a n th e c o s t to re p a irit. Id

. at 152. T he defenda nt ar gued thatt he exc ul pat or ycl aus e barr ed the p lai n ti ff s fro m rec over i ng the monet aryd am ag es b ec au se th eyw ere c o n s e q u e n tia l. Id a t 1 5 2 n . 4

. T h e c o u r t , c o n s t ru i n g M a r y l a n d l a w, hel d t hat“the cost of re pl aci ng t he al l egedl y defe ct i ve r oofs w hi ch pl ai nt i ffs s eek t o r ecove rcons t i tut es t he di r ectdamage, not i nci dent al orcons equent i al damages , caus ed byt he w rongsS i nce n egli gen ce w as excl ud ed b yt he ex culpat orycl ause 7 a s th e b a sis f

o r d a m a g e s, d a m a g e s c h a ra c ter ize d a s f lo w in g so lely f ro m n e g lig e n c e (w h ic h is , a g a in , a m a tte r o p e n to d e b a te , s upr a n. 2 ) sh o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n a llo w e d in a n ye v e n t. 17 al l eged. ” Id

. ( ci t i ng C or r el l i R oof i ng C o. v. N

at 'l I ns t r um ent

C o. , 2 1 4 A

. 2 d 9 1 9 , 9 2 1 (M d

. 1 9 6 5 )).
T he type of da m ages s oughti n 21s tC ent ur y Proper t i es di ffe r s fr om t he damages s oughtbyW ar t s i l a i n t hi s cas e. I n 21 st C ent u r y Proper t i es , t he part i es di r ect l ycontr act ed fort he i ns t al l at i on of t he fa ul t yr oofs , w hi ch i ts oughtt o r epl ace . I n t he cas e athand, H i l l and W ar t s i l a cont r act ed for L eFebvr e t o pr ovi de cons ul t i ng s er vi ces on t he Pr oj ect

. L eF ebvr e onl ypr ovi ded s er vi ces undert hat cont r actfr om J anuary24, 1995 t hr ough M ay 25, 1995. O n J une 1, 1995, W ar t s i l a hi r ed LeFebvr e di r ect l y , as an i ndepende ntcontr act or , t o pr ovi de a s s i s t a n c e wi th cons t ruct i on and cl ai m s m anage m enton t he Pr oj ect

. Fur ther, w hen H i l l s uppl i ed W a rtsila w ith a c o n su ltan t, it w a s n o t in e v itab le th a t tw o a n d a h a lf y e a rs la ter , W a rtsila w a s g o in g to e n g a g e in a rb itratio n a n d c a ll L eFebvr e as a keyw i t nes s . N um er ous i nt erv en ing, cont i ngent event s occurr ed w i t hi n t hos e s even y ear s , i ncl udi ng: ( 1) t h e f act t hatt he cl ai m s betw een the part i es coul d notbe r eso lved exce pt t hr ough arbi t r at i on; ( 2) t he fa ctt hatt hos e cl ai m s w ere s uch that L eFebvr e’ s t es t i m ony w as nece s s aryand w oul d be the ce nt erpi ece o f th e c a se ; (3 ) th e f

a c t th a t L e F e b v re w a s e m p lo y e d b y W a rtsila and, t hus , avai l abl e t o t es t i fy ; ( 4) t he fac t t hat L eFebvr e comm i t t ed per j ur y ; and ( 5) t he fact t hat W ar t s i l a al l egedl y l os tt he arbi t r at i on as a r es ul t

. W hetherornott hes e eve nt s can f ai r ly b e ca l l ed a for es eea bl e r es ul tof t he i ni t i al br eac h, t heyar e noti nevi t abl e. T he D i s t ri ctC our terr ed i n fai l i ng t o excl ude evi dence of “inc iden tal , sp ec ial , ind ir ec t, o r co n seq u en ti al” d am ag es. F u rt h er, the C o u rtd id n o t ask the j u ry to i d en ti fy w h ich po rt ion o f it s aw ard w as bas ed on H i l l ’ s br eac h of contr actori t s al l eged ne gl i gence . 7 T h u s, w e c a n n o t tell f

ro m th e ju ry ' s v e rd ict w h a t p o r ti o n o f its aw ar d of damages w as bas ed on di r ectdamages and w hatamount w as bas ed on conse quent i al damages

. I n or der t o gi ve effec tt o t he excul pat or ycl aus e agr eed t o byt hes e par t i es , ther e mustbe a ne w18 t ri al on t he is sue of

dam ages. C oncl usi on W e vac at e the aw ar d of damages

. W e rem and fora tr i al so lelyo n th e a m o u n t o f d a m a g e s th a t sh o u ld b e a w a rd e d to W ar t s i l a. T he D i s t r i ctC our ti s i ns t ruct ed t o admi tonl yevi dence o f d ire c t d a m a g e s c a u se d b yH ill ’s b re a c h o f c o n tra c t.