Opinion ID: 626425
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: The Evidence in Support of the Damages Award Was Sufficient.

Text: We also reject the argument of the union that Fidelity failed to present sufficient evidence to support its claim of lost future profits. The evidence Fidelity presented was not too speculative; proof of the amount [of damages] can be an estimate, uncertain, or inexact. Mid-Am. Tablewares, Inc. v. Mogi Trading Co., 100 F.3d 1353, 1367 (7th Cir.1996) (quoting Robert L. Dunn, Recovery of Damages for Lost Profits § 1.3 at 11). Fidelity submitted evidence of the drywall work that Choate and Warren Hanks subcontracted to other companies in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. Many general contractors testified that they were satisfied with the work performed by Fidelity, and at least two of these contractors testified that they would have invited Fidelity to bid on their projects had the union not picketed. Fidelity also presented evidence about the percentage of drywall subcontract work that it had historically performed for various contractors and its historic profit margin, which provided a basis for the jury to infer that Fidelity would have continued to perform and profit from approximately the same proportion of drywall work as it had in the past. Ultimately, any uncertainty as to the damages stems from the ... illegal conduct [of the union], ... [and] the [union] should not benefit from the uncertainty [it] created. BE&K Constr. Co. v. Will & Grundy Counties Bldg. Trades Council, 156 F.3d 756, 770 (7th Cir.1998). The union is not entitled to complain that [the damages] cannot be measured with the exactness and precision that would be possible if the case, which [the union] alone is responsible for making, were otherwise. Story Parchment Co., 282 U.S. at 563, 51 S.Ct. at 250-51.