Opinion ID: 166639
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Calculability of Damages

Text: 50 Under Utah law, [a] prejudgment interest award is proper when the damage is complete . . . [and] the loss can be measured by facts and figures. Lefavi v. Bertoch, 994 P.2d 817, 823 (Utah Ct.App. 2000) (quotations omitted). [A] court may only award prejudgment interest if damages are calculable within a mathematical certainty. Id. 51 In this case, Pro Axess itself was not able to calculate its damages consistently during the period before trial, making clear that such damages were not calculable within a mathematical certainty. In its January 1997 complaint, Pro Axess claimed damages of $342,000 plus prejudgment interest. 10 In its Rule 26(a) disclosures two years later, Pro Axess stated that its damages had not been determined. In a July 1999 response to an interrogatory, Pro Axess claimed damages of $239,950 plus prejudgment interest. 11 In an October 2000 affidavit and in the May 2001 Pretrial Order, Pro Axess claimed damages of $309,603. 12 52 The evolution of the amount of Pro Axess's damages claim during trial also underscores the fact that those damages were not calculable within a mathematical certainty. Pro Axess decreased its claim for unrealized gross profits from $119,700 to $98,700 because it had overstated the lost revenue on which those profits were based by $60,000. Pro Axess also decreased its claim for the cost of parts already purchased from $60,390 to $57,564 because it had mistakenly included the cost of parts from another order. Thus, at trial Pro Axess's total claim for damages decreased by $13,826, plus the associated difference in interest. 53 Further, Pro Axess's damages for unrealized gross profits simply were not calculable within a mathematical certainty based on the evidence that Pro Axess submitted to the district court. Pro Axess submitted virtually no evidence in support of its claim of a 35% gross profit margin. Especially given Utah courts' reluctance to award prejudgment interest for unrealized profits, see Canyon Country Store v. Bracey, 781 P.2d 414, 422 (Utah 1989) (While the basis of the `formula' used to determine Canyon Country's lost profits may have been sufficient for the jury to render a verdict in favor of Canyon Country, it is too speculative to allow for the addition of prejudgment interest.), Pro Axess's evidence of its gross profit margin is clearly inadequate to support the award of prejudgment interest. 54 Similarly, Pro Axess failed to provide any written support for its claimed travel costs and other expenses. One of Pro Axess's employees noted that in calculating these expenses we didn't get down to specifics but instead looked at the trips that we had taken, some of the other out-of-pocket costs, and came up with a round figure. Such an effort clearly does not establish damages calculable within a mathematical certainty. 55 Pro Axess argues that the variance over time in the amount of damages that it sought came as a result of a mistake in calculation, and that such a mistake should not defeat its claim for prejudgment interest. In support of this contention, Pro Axess relies on Lefavi's finding that a defendant's failure to keep proper records should not bar an award of prejudgment interest. See Lefavi, 994 P.2d at 823. However, in this case it is the inability of Plaintiff — not Defendants — to keep proper records that impedes Plaintiff's attempt to establish damages calculable within a mathematical certainty. It is well-established under Utah law that a plaintiff's inability to calculate its damages accurately may bar the award of prejudgment interest. See Anesthesiologists Assoc., 852 P.2d at 1042 n. 11 (Although arriving at this figure should only have been a matter of adding up the number of late-night visits made by nurse anesthetists over the contract period, it would be unfair to charge prejudgment interest against the [defendant] when [the plaintiff], due to inadequate records or otherwise, apparently could not arrive at a mathematically precise figure at the time it filed its Amended Complaint.). Thus, Pro Axess's reliance on Lefavi is misplaced. 56 Finally, the fact that a jury has already awarded damages in this case does not mean that damages were calculable within a mathematical certainty. Because it is axiomatic that all claims can be reduced eventually to monetary value, [c]ommon sense precludes the conclusion that merely because damages have been calculated by a jury, they are calculable within a mathematical certainty. Canyon Country Store, 781 P.2d at 422. 57 Thus, Pro Axess is not entitled to prejudgment interest because its damages were not calculable within a mathematical certainty.