Opinion ID: 2629922
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: issues

Text: [¶ 2] The three parties each state the issues differently. D & D phrases the issue as: Did the court err in granting the motions for summary judgment of Basin Western, Inc., and Interline Energy Services, Inc., as to consequential economic damages sustained by the plaintiff? Interline states the issues as: 1. Is Tolar v. [ Amax ] Coal Co., 862 P.2d 144 (Wyo.1993) the controlling precedent in Wyoming which allows D & D to maintain its tort action for consequential economic damages it claims to have suffered [?] 2. Did Interline owe D & D a duty to protect its economic interests by keeping its Plant in operation [?] Lastly, Basin Western asserts the following issues: A. Did the court err when it granted summary judgment for economic damages that had no relation to the property loss sustained by D & D? B. Can a business (D & D) claim damages for prospective lost profits and/or loss of business value for inconvenience to its operations allegedly caused by injury to a third party's property? C. Did Interline or Basin Western owe a legal duty to D & D not to damage the Well Draw Gas Plant? D. Did D & D present competent evidence to support its claim of economic loss?