Opinion ID: 1058614
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Alleged Damages & 40% Gross Profit Margin

Text: At trial, Scutellaro qualified, without objection, as an expert in lighting manufacturing and quoting of lighting products. Scutellaro testified about Mario's lost revenues and lost profits, allegedly resulting from the defendants' actions that caused Mario to lose specific contract lighting projects. Evidence offered by Mario regarding lost revenues and lost profits (applying a 40.5434% gross profit margin) was as follows: ---------------------------------------------------- LOST LOST PROJECT REVENUES PROFITS ---------------------------------------------------- Hilton Garden Inn $2,000,000 $810,868 ---------------------------------------------------- Benjamin West $3,532,400 $1,419,019 ---------------------------------------------------- Fisherman's Wharf $48,950 $19,845.99 ---------------------------------------------------- Big Sur Lodge $25,793.08 $10,457.39 ---------------------------------------------------- Annapolis Marriott $37,806.50 $15,328.04 ---------------------------------------------------- Residence Inn Capitol $12,420 $5,035.49 ---------------------------------------------------- Sheraton Key Largo $32,615.12 $13,223.28 ---------------------------------------------------- Hyatt Deerfield $96,480.62 $39,116.52 ---------------------------------------------------- Other Contract Sales $876,740 $400,000 ---------------------------------------------------- File Recovery & Reconstruction N/A $25,625.90 ---------------------------------------------------- TOTAL $6,663,205.32 $2,758,519.61 ---------------------------------------------------- Mario's lost profits figures were necessarily dependent upon Scutellaro applying Mario's 40.5434% gross profit margin to its lost revenues. When asked what Mario's lost profits were with respect to the Benjamin West project, Scutellaro testified that Mario's gross profit margin is 40.5434% and that it is calculated by [Mario's] accountant. The defendants then objected [a]s to entering figures reportedly given [to Scutellaro] by his accountant. Mario's counsel indicated that the accountant was present. The trial court sustained the objection on hearsay grounds. The question was posed again. Notably, the parties did not condition Scutellaro's response regarding the 40% gross profit margin on Mario's accountant testifying. Upon posing the question again, Scutellaro testified, without objection, that Mario's gross profit margin was 40.5434%. Mario never called its accountant to testify. Instead, Scutellaro testified about the gross profit margin using an exhibit demonstrating Mario's gross profit margin. The defendants again objected to Scutellaro testifying to Mario's 40% gross profit margin, arguing that Scutellaro was not qualified as an expert in accounting. The trial court overruled the objection, saying I don't think he is testifying as to anything that would require any expertise so far. Finally, the defendants objected, arguing that Mario did not lay a proper foundation to Scutellaro applying the 40% gross profit margin to Mario's lost revenues for each of the projects. The trial court overruled the objection on the grounds that the foundation is his knowledge as an owner of the business.