Opinion ID: 2573445
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Encon Did Assert a Sufficiently Consistent Damage Claim

Text: ¶ 56 First, the FAK parties contend that Encon repeatedly changed the amount of its claim, including a final revision on the third day of trial, and thus, the damage claim was not calculable with mathematical certainty, and the trial court erred in awarding prejudgment interest to Encon. ¶ 57 This argument is not persuasive because, as noted by Encon, most of the changes Encon made to its damage figures preceded the date on which the trial court began calculating prejudgment interest. The only change to Encon's claimed damages after the date from which the trial court began its calculation of prejudgment interest on September 15, 2004, was a change made on March 14, 2004, when Encon made a voluntary reduction in the amount [of damages] to reflect the evidence at trial. ¶ 58 Citing this court's holding, the court of appeals has held, [t]he fact that the parties dispute or reduce the amount of damages does not in and of itself mean that damages are incomplete or cannot be calculated with mathematical accuracy. [26] We agree and recognize that a single voluntary reduction in claimed damages during trial does not preclude those damages from being measurable or calculable. ¶ 59 The FAK parties cite two cases as support for the proposition that when the party claiming prejudgment interest cannot establish its damages consistently during the period before trial, ... such damages [are] not `calculable within a mathematical certainty.' [27] In the cases cited, however, damages could not be calculated with any degree of certainty, in part, because of the inherently speculative nature of some of the damages sought. Both cases involved plaintiffs seeking recovery, at least in part, of future lost profits. In Pro Axess, for example, Pro Axess sought damages for parts purchased, travel expenses, and unrealized gross profits. [28] The Tenth Circuit found that Pro Axess submitted virtually no evidence to support its claim that it was due damages based on a 35% gross profit margin. [29] Noting the absence of evidence as well as Utah courts' reluctance to award prejudgment interest for unrealized profits, the Tenth Circuit denied Pro Axess's claim for prejudgment interest. [30] ¶ 60 Here, Encon seeks recovery of damages for a completed percentage of work on a fixed-price contract and for profits on that work at a rate of 10%. [31] At trial, the FAK parties' expert agreed that 10% was a reasonable profit margin. Thus, the profits Encon seeks are known, calculable figures and are not similar to the speculative future profits that were at issue in Pro Axess. ¶ 61 Given that a reduction in the amount of damages does not necessarily, and did not in this case, infringe the court's ability to subject those damage figures to mathematical calculation, the FAK parties' first argument as to prejudgment interest fails.