Opinion ID: 2139960
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Damages Limited to 2-Year Period

Text: Aon assigns error to the district court's determination that evidence regarding damages allegedly incurred more than 2 years after Pearson's breach of the nonsolicitation agreement would be speculative and irrelevant and, therefore, inadmissible. In response to this ruling, Aon made an offer of proof establishing that Aon has retained 95 percent of its customers each year since 2001 and that the losses caused by Pearson's breach could be expected to occur at least through the year 2005. The district court again ruled that evidence of damages beyond the 2-year period was speculative and inadmissible. It sustained Pearson's objection to an offer of evidence showing Aon's claimed lost profits in the years 2004 to 2006. A trial court has the discretion to determine the relevancy and admissibility of evidence, and such determinations will not be disturbed on appeal unless they constitute an abuse of that discretion. [27] Pearson would have been free to solicit business from Aon customers after the 2-year restricted period, and there is evidence in the record that customers can change brokers whenever they choose to do so, without prior notice. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that evidence of lost profits beyond the 2-year period was speculative and, therefore, irrelevant and inadmissible.