Opinion ID: 1953228
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The trial court erred in allowing the Plaintiff's expert Ken Lefoldt to testify regarding future profits and possible damages.

Text: ¶ 17. WDAM argues that, should this court elect to reverse and remand for a new trial, this Court should disallow the expert testimony of Ken Lefoldt regarding future profits. WDAM argues that the entire testimony of Mr. Lefoldt was based upon loss of future profits that were based upon a gross estimate and not a net estimate.... To ascertain net profits, a party must deduct certain items of overhead, depreciation, taxes, and inflation. Further, future profits should always be discounted at an appropriate rate to arrive at present value. ¶ 18. Eason disputes that the aforementioned testimony was improper, but he appears to concede that the testimony of Lefoldt regarding future profits would not be necessary in any retrial on remand. Specifically, Eason states in his brief that since Mr. LeFoldt limited his damages to twenty-eight (28) months, if this case is retried then all damages would be past and there will probably be no need for testimony regarding future damages in this action. This Court accepts Eason at his word and directs the trial court to disallow the testimony of Lefoldt regarding future profits on remand. ¶ 19. DIRECT APPEAL: REVERSED AND REMANDED. CROSS-APPEAL: AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. DAN LEE, C.J., SULLIVAN, P.J., and PITTMAN, BANKS, JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr., SMITH and MILLS, JJ., concur. McRAE, J., concurs in result only.