Court Opinion

ID: 9516515
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 23:44:10.028048+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:27.492977
License: Public Domain

HABHAB, Judge,
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur with the majority that an agreement was made and breached, but believe damages are too speculative to permit recovery under the new business rule. EBP had been in business for only three years, conducted only three benefits presentations, and had never made a profit. EBP’s previous presentations were made to groups less than half the size of those planned for the hospital. EBP presented limited evidence of the statistical make-up of the previous groups, an important factor in gauging enrollment. There were also different dollar limits on the insurance products sold at the previous presentations. In addition, the court discounted Mr. Haywood’s testimony because he was a proponent of the type of insurance marketing EBP was engaged in. Finally, EBP presented no documentary evidence of profitability based on experience in the industry, or business records of similar enterprises.
HAYDEN, J., joins this concurrence in part and dissent in part.
SACKETT, J., joins this dissent.