Opinion ID: 2217846
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sufficiency of Inventory Computations in Point of Time.

Text: The inventory computations prepared by Diegnan disclosed that the value of plaintiff's parts and accessories as of December 31, 1959, based on a physical count was $14,006.31 less than the book value thereof disclosed by the parts and accessories account. These computations further showed that prior to December 31, 1959, a physical inventory had not been taken since October 11, 1958. Thus this discrepancy of $14,006.31 occurred over a period of fourteen and two-thirds months. Nevertheless, Woodward's employment by plaintiff only extended from May 29, 1959, to November 25, 1959, or approximately six months within this period of fourteen and two-thirds months. The record is completely barren of proof that any of plaintiff's employees other than Woodward misappropriated any parts and accessories. This $14,006.31 discrepancy was 9.82 percent of total sales for this fourteen and two-thirds months' period. Nevertheless, during the ten month period from November 30, 1956, to September 30, 1957, there had been a variance of $12,411.31 between the value revealed by a physical inventory and the book value of plaintiff's parts-and-accessories account. This variance was 13.28 percent of total sales. In the course of his testimony, Diegnan stated that plaintiff's purchases of parts and accessories exceeded its sales thereof by $13,982.59 during the period of May 31, 1959, to November 30, 1959, roughly the period of Woodward's employment. Nevertheless, Diegnan did not testify with respect to any variance between purchases and sales during the remainder of the period from October 11, 1958, to December 31, 1959, nor did he point out any particular significance of this $13,982.59 figure. Furthermore, the record does not disclose whether Woodward had exclusive control over the amount of parts and accessories that plaintiff purchased during the period of his employment as manager of plaintiff's parts-and-accessories department. Except for the thefts admitted by Woodward during the six months of his employment, plaintiff has not proved wholly apart from such [inventory] computations the fact of any loss of property through any fraudulent or dishonest act or acts committed by any one or more of the employees as it is required to do under sec. 2 (b) of the exclusions of the policy. Neither Woodward's admitted thefts nor proof comprised of inventory computations is sufficient basis for establishing the fact of further recoverable losses on the policy due to acts of other employees. We conclude on the record before us that even if the excluded inventory computations were to be admitted into evidence, a jury could only speculate in arriving at a verdict because it would have to determine what part of the $14,006.31 discrepancy for the period of fourteen and twothirds months occurred during Woodward's six-month period of employment. It is elementary that verdicts cannot be based upon conjecture or speculation. Frenzel v. First National Ins. Co. (1954), 267 Wis. 642, 646, 647, 66 N. W. (2d) 679. We therefore conclude that even though the offered inventory computations were admissible despite the provisions of sec. 2 (b) of the exclusions of the policy, the trial court properly took the case from the jury. By the Court. Judgment affirmed.