Opinion ID: 1003748
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Date Of Computation Of Liquidated Damages

Text: Tidewater argues that the award of liquidated damages must be set aside because it was calculated as of an incorrect date contending that, based on the language of the contract, liquidated damages must be computed for the six full calendar months period immediately preceding the transfer by client of any of the services provided under the agreement to a Fiserv competitor or in-house capabilities. Tidewater 6 TIDEWATER FINANCE CO. v. FISERV SOLUTIONS, INC. argues that the date should be the date on which services were terminated by Tidewater, not the date Fiserv ceased providing services. Paragraph 20(c) of the agreement states that liquidated damages are a sum equivalent to the average monthly gross revenue recieved by FIS on account of the Services of FIS transferred either to a competitor or to in-house capabilities by Client during the six (6) full calendar month period immediately preceding such transfer, which average monthly sum shall be multiplied by the remaining term of this agreement. This provision clearly requires liquidated damages to be calculated as of the end of the month before the date that services are transferred by Tidewater to a competitor or in-house. Thus, the only question remaining is was the jury correct in determining that the date was February 28, 1999 - the last day of the full month before March 2, 1999, the date Tidewater notified Fiserv that it would no longer use any of Fiserv’s services, or December 10, 1999 - the date Tidewater actually switched to another service? Thus, Tidewater argues that liquidated damages should be calculated using the date it stopped accessing the services, while Fiserv maintains that damages should be calculated from the date Tidewater notified Fiserv to stop providing services or making them available. As the district court noted, this dispute is a classic factual issue for the jury to decide. Accordingly, because there was a factual dispute fueled by conflicting evidence combined with the fact that the language in the contract on this issue is ambiguous, the court properly left the question of the date from which liquidated damages should be computed to the jury. The jury determined that the phrase Services of FIS transferred refers to more than the transferring of accounts to another provider, but requires the knowledge of Fiserv since it must discontinue providing services which requires its knowledge. This is certainly a reasonable interpretation. Tidewater bears the burden of proving that reasonable men could reach no other conclusion than the transfer of services occurred in TIDEWATER FINANCE CO. v. FISERV SOLUTIONS, INC. 7 December. Tidewater does not meet this burden as the jury’s interpretation is a reasonable one.