Opinion ID: 2979856
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Summit County

Text: In addition to their marketing and branding failures, the district court found that defendants breached the SPA by preventing plaintiffs from pursuing an opportunity with Summit County, causing the loss of a contract valued at $376,000 in annual revenue. Again, while not disputing the underlying breach, defendants assert that the evidence was insufficient to support the district court’s finding that their actions caused the loss of a contract with Summit County. We agree. The only evidence in the record pertaining to the opportunity with Summit County was the direct examination of Eggert. This testimony was accurately summarized by the district court as follows: 2 In holding that 15% of former client losses were attributable to the acquisition and the concomitant system conversion, the district court relied upon and credited the opinion of Todd Squilanti, who testified that a 15% loss in clients is generally expected to occur after an acquisition. Accordingly, defendants’ assertion that this percentage is “meaningless” is without merit. - 11 - Nos. 10-3223/10-3282 Eggert, et al. v. Meritain Health, Inc., et al. Eggert was a “lifelong friend” of Don Plusquellic, the mayor of Akron, Ohio. (Tr. 387.) Eggert and his wife made a personal trip to Boston to support Mayor Plusquellic when he was installed as the president of the National Conference of Mayors in 2004. (Tr. 387-88 .) In Boston, Mayor Plusquellic introduced Eggert to the Executive Director of Summit County, Ohio[.] (Tr. 388.) Eggert testified that he “spent time on a couple of occasions during the conference speaking with the Executive Director,” who gave Eggert his business card and requested that Eggert call him. (Tr. 388.) When Eggert returned to Ohio, he contacted Ken Jones in Summit County’s Risk Management Department, which handled the county’s employee benefit plan. (Tr. 389.) They set up a meeting in August of 2004, attended by Eggert, Chuck Bates, Jones, and Mayor Plusquellic. (Tr. 390, 391.) Eggert testified that he found the meeting to be “[v]ery favorable,” and a follow-up meeting was arranged between Eggert, Bates, and Jones to further discuss the program. (Tr. 390.) Eggert “immediately reported to Ron Dewsnup and Cheryl Tidwell the details of the meeting,” telling them that “it was a great opportunity,” that Mayor Plusquellic “attended and gave a strong reference to us and participated in the meeting and discussions about the program,” and that a follow-up meeting had been arranged. (Tr. 390-91.) At Dewsnup’s request, Eggert arranged for Tidwell to attend the follow-up meeting along with Eggert and Bates. (Tr. 391.) Just prior to that follow-up meeting, Tidwell, who was arriving from a different direction, met Eggert and Bates at a restaurant and advised them that Eggert and Bates “were to stay out of Summit County.” (Tr. 391-92.) She further advised them that Sandy Hahn, a sales representative of NABN, would be pursuing the Summit County opportunity. (Tr. 393.) If Hahn had secured the account, the revenue would not have been attributable to E-V. (Tr. 394.) Based upon this testimony, the district court found “that Defendant prevented Plaintiffs from taking advantage of the Summit County opportunity, which could have increased Revenue, thereby increasing the amount of monies owed Plaintiffs under the SPA.” However, the district court never made an express finding that, absent the breach, E-V was reasonably certain to obtain a contract with Summit County. See Textron, 684 N.E.2d at 1266 (holding that damages must be “established with reasonable certainty”). - 12 - Nos. 10-3223/10-3282 Eggert, et al. v. Meritain Health, Inc., et al. We hold that the evidence was insufficient to find that E-V was reasonably certain to obtain a contract with Summit County in the absence of defendants’ breach. McLellan testified that the average TPA only closes on 6 - 12% of the opportunities presented on an annual basis, and the district court credited this testimony, holding that E-V was reasonably certain to close on 6% of presented opportunities. While Eggert believed that the first meeting with Summit County was “very favorable,” there was no evidence indicating how likely it was that Summit County would eventually sign a contract with E-V. Indeed, when asked whether E-V was likely to obtain a contract with Summit County, Eggert merely noted that Summit County presented “a great opportunity.” Accordingly, the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that E-V was reasonably certain to have obtained a contract with Summit County in the absence of defendants’ breach. Upon remand, the district court must recalculate the amount of E-V’s lost profits, excluding those losses attributable to the Summit County contract.