Opinion ID: 1058614
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Hilton Garden Inn

Text: The following evidence regarding Mario's damages from losing the Hilton Garden Inn project was admitted without objection. In 1999, Mario entered a contract or program with Hilton making their lighting exclusively for [Hilton Garden Inn's] guest rooms. During the course of this exclusive contract or program, in April 2003, Cook received a request for pricing from Hilton on a Hilton Garden Inn project. In May 2003, Cook submitted a bid for the Hilton Garden Inn project without properly working out the pricing. Scutellaro testified that there were no calculations done. This was just really a guess . . . I have to assume it was an educated guess. Scutellaro testified that [b]ecause of [Cook's] improper quote [Mario] lost the job, [Mario] lost the business. Scutellaro further testified that his calculation for the project was 10% lower than Cook's calculation for the job. This difference means the difference between getting a job and losing a job. As a result of losing this project, Mario is no longer the exclusive vendor for lighting for Hilton Garden Inn. Additionally, Scutellaro testified that Mario had a reasonable expectation of getting all of these projects. As a result of losing the Hilton Garden Inn project, Mario claimed $2,000,000 in lost revenue and $810,868 in lost profits. Scutellaro testified that he knew who was awarded the project; however, he had no evidence of the amount of the winning bid. This evidence was admitted without objection. Having been admitted, the evidence was sufficient to support a jury finding that Mario would have won the Hilton Garden Inn project based on Mario's long-term relationship with Hilton and Mario's contract or program as the exclusive guest room lighting manufacturer for Hilton Garden Inn.