Opinion ID: 2498928
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Damages for Violation of Paragraph 8(m)

Text: [¶ 25] In an action for breach of contract, the damages awarded are designed to put the plaintiff in the same position as if the contract had been performed. Capshaw v. Schieck, 2002 WY 54, ¶ 10, 44 P.3d 47, 52 (Wyo.2002). The plaintiff carries the burden of producing sufficient evidence to prove its damages with a reasonable degree of certainty. Knight v. TCB Constr. & Design, LLC, 2011 WY 27, ¶ 17, 248 P.3d 178, 184 (Wyo.2011). Damages must be proven with a reasonable degree of certainty, and a court may not resort to speculation or conjecture in determining the proper amount to award. Schlinger v. McGhee, 2012 WY 7, ¶ 12, 268 P.3d 264, 268 (Wyo.2012) (quoting Capshaw, ¶ 10, 44 P.3d at 52). [¶ 26] The district court awarded Berthel no damages for the breach of the rock removal provision. In so ruling, the court explained: The reason the plaintiff's damage claim as to ¶ 8(m) fails as to the burden of proof is, simply, that the only evidence presented to this Court as to what it would cost to remove the rocks relates to a computation based on Mr. Lowery's guess or desire for what should be done and does not relate to contract damages. The only evidence presented relates to subsurface rock. The evidence is not broken out in parts, nor are there any references made in the materials, either the formal estimate or the working notes or scope of work, upon which this Court could rely to find that some fraction or portion of the estimate presented by the plaintiff actually related to surface rock. Being unable then to reasonably extricate from the evidence the cost of removal of surface rock, and because the removal of subsurface rock is not a portion of damages in this case, the Court cannot and will not order damages for the breach. (Emphasis in original.) [¶ 27] We agree. At trial, Berthel sought in excess of five million dollars in damages. This amount represented what it would cost to have the entire easement excavated to a depth of two feet, the topsoil replaced, and the ground reseeded. Berthel presented no evidence of what it would cost to remove surface rock only, nor any evidence that an operation of this magnitude was required to remove surface rock only. And on appeal, Berthel does not contend otherwise. Instead, Berthel reasserts its right to have both surface and subsurface rock removed and its entitlement to damages measured by the cost of removing both. Because Berthel did not present evidence of what it would cost to remove surface rock only, and the district court would have to speculate as to what that cost might be, we conclude the district court's ruling on rock removal damages was not clearly erroneous. [2]