Court Opinion

ID: 9838377
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-06 13:04:53.511872+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:59.632186
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

 ARKRAY AMERICA, INC.,         )
                               )
       Plaintiff,              )
                               )
       v.                      ) C.A. No. N20C-12-012 MMJ CCLD
                               )
 NAVIGATOR BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, )
 INC. AND N’WARE TECHNOLOGIES, )
 INC.,                         )
                               )
       Defendants.             )

                                     ORDER

      The Court has reviewed the submissions dated August 31, 2023 and

September 1, 2023. The Court permitted the parties to provide clarification of their

arguments concerning the damages that are the subject of ARKRAY’s Motion in

Limine #1 and Defendants’ Motion in Limine #3. Because trial begins in less than

a week, the Court is providing the following conclusions, without a more fulsome

analysis.

      Section 3.6.1 of the relevant Agreement unambiguously states: “Under no

circumstances shall either party…be liable to each other or any other person or entity

be liable in any amount for special, incidental, consequential or indirect damages.”
      ARKRAY’s damages expert opined: “Given the Alleged Acts and the

project’s ultimate failure, the ARKRAY employee time spent on the Navigator

implementation project represents an opportunity cost to ARKRAY, or economic

benefit forgone by using resources for one purpose over another.” The Court finds

that this employee time is consequential damages, which are specifically excluded

by the Agreement. Both Utah and Delaware law are consistent with this conclusion.

      A further issue is whether Section 3.3.1 of the Agreement creates an exception

to the prohibition against recovery of consequential damages, based on the language

“in addition to any other remedies it has, the right to a full refund for all amounts

paid to NBS for the non-conforming Deliverable.” The Court finds this argument

unpersuasive. The reference to “in addition to any other remedies” is insufficiently

specific to supersede the clear and explicit exclusion of consequential damages

elsewhere in the Agreement.

      THEREFORE, Defendants’ Motion in Limine #3 is hereby GRANTED.

      The Court also finds that Navigator’s damages claim for Additional Services

is one for consequential damages. As part of Navigator’s breach of the covenant of

good faith and fair dealing claim, consequential damages are prohibited by Section

3.6.1. As part of Navigator’s fraud claim, consequential damages survive only for

pre-contractual fraud in the inducement. Pursuant to Utah law, post-contractual

                                         2
fraud relating to termination of the Agreement will not include recovery of

consequential damages.

      THEREFORE, ARKRAY’s Motion in Limine #2, on the issue of Navigator’s

Additional Services damages claim, is hereby GRANTED.

      Navigator was allowed the opportunity to submit a supplemental damages

report by expert Nielson. At this time, it appears that no supplemental report has

been served. Therefore, the Court will not address any unresolved issues relating to

ARKRAY’s Motion in Limine #2.

      IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:     September 5, 2023                      /s/ Mary M. Johnston
                                             The Honorable Mary M. Johnston

                                         3