Opinion ID: 773252
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Method of Measuring Damages

Text: 38 We review the district court's choice of a measure of damages for an abuse of discretion. Cf. Thyssen, Inc. v. S/S EUROUNITY, 21 F.3d 533, 540 (2d Cir. 1994) (analyzing damages under COGSA). Having done so, we conclude that the district court did not exceed its discretion in relying on the replacement cost to calculate Project Hope's damages for the spoiled humulin. 39 Contrary to Project Hope's argument on appeal, the fair market value is not the exclusive measure of damages under the Carmack Amendment. See id.; Oak Hill Cap & Gown Co. v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., 899 F.2d 291, 296 (4th Cir. 1990). While it is true that damages under the Carmack Amendment should generally be based on the fair market value, see Contempo Metal Furniture Co. v. East Tex. Motor Freight Lines Inc., 661 F.2d 761, 764 (9th Cir. 1981), we have held that it need not be applied if circumstances suggest a more appropriate alternative. Thyssen, 21 F.3d at 540 (internal citation omitted). 40 Here, no open market existed to provide a fair market value of humulin, thus warranting reliance on the replacement cost. While Project Hope attempted to construct various market values from, among other considerations, the value Eli Lilly established in its `gift in kind' inventory report when it donated the original shipment of humulin, see Project Hope, 96 F. Supp. 2d at 291, the district court acted within its discretion in rejecting these constructed values because it reasonably believed they provided less reliable measures of Project Hope's loss. See id. at 297 (reasoning that a greater award of damages [above the actual replacement cost] based on an artificial estimation of market value would only result in a windfall to Project Hope).