Opinion ID: 2514236
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Faulk's costs may have included some double billing.

Text: MAPCO asserts that Faulk double billed for his own labor time in his computation of damages. Faulk allegedly did this by billing the same time in the following manner. While Faulk was operating equipment at the warehouse, Faulk billed his own time at an hourly rate. At the same time, Faulk billed the equipment use at a wet rate that included a charge for the operatorwhile Faulk himself was the operator. This is double billing, MAPCO claims, because the operator's time is not separately billedit is part of the enhanced wet rate for the equipment. Faulk denies double billing and claims that there is no evidence that he actually separately billed for any time that he spent operating equipment. It is difficult to tell from the record which party is correct here. Faulk did indicate at the trial that the wet rate for equipment was sometimes used when he himself was the operator. [39] And Faulk indicated that he billed his own time as a supervisor for some work at $39.60 an hour. [40] However, it is not clear from the record whether these two charges actually overlapped. The alleged double billing, if true, would warrant a reduction in the compensatory damages award. Therefore, a remand is required to clarify whether any double billing occurred.