Alpha Wealth Advisors v. Cook, 983 N.W.2d 526

Background

In 2019 Hall (a registered investment advisor) and Alpha Wealth Advisors, LLC sued Jenna Cook after a car accident Cook admitted causing; plaintiffs sought damages for Hall’s medical expenses, pain and suffering, and lost commissions Alpha Wealth allegedly lost because Hall couldn’t meet clients for weeks.
Plaintiffs’ proof: testimony from Hall, operations manager Cassi Hillgren, chiropractor Robert Kallio, and forensic economist David Rosenbaum; plaintiffs claimed roughly $32,000 lost to Hall in Q2 2019 and about $71,000 lost to Alpha Wealth in 2019 and ongoing losses thereafter.
At trial plaintiffs attempted to show reduced commissions via Rosenbaum’s analysis and anecdotal testimony, but key documentary exhibits were not offered into evidence at trial and some expert causation questions were excluded without an offer of proof.
Cook moved for directed verdicts at close of plaintiffs’ case; the district court granted directed verdict for Alpha Wealth (no evidence of its damages/standing) and for Hall on lost commissions (insufficient evidence of net profits/causation); Hall’s medical/pain-and-suffering claim went to the jury and yielded $1,312.
Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed: Alpha Wealth lacked standing to assert claims for damages arising from Hall’s personal injury as an entity distinct from Hall; Hall’s lost-commissions claim was too speculative and unsupported by evidence of net profits or causation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Alpha Wealth (LLC) had standing to claim lost commissions from Hall’s personal injuries	Alpha Wealth is a named plaintiff and Hall was acting as its agent; commissions earned by Hall belong to the company	An LLC is a separate legal entity; personal injuries to Hall are not injuries to Alpha Wealth and plaintiffs offered no evidence of the company’s loss	No standing — directed verdict for Cook; LLC cannot bring that personal-injury–derived claim absent proof it sustained its own loss
Whether Hall proved lost commissions/lost profits with sufficient certainty	Testimony and Rosenbaum’s variance analysis showed a $32k drop in commissions causally tied to the accident	Evidence was speculative: inconsistent testimony, no business records or proof of costs, and no reliable proof of causation	Insufficient evidence of net lost profits and causation — directed verdict for Cook on lost commissions
Whether exclusion of portions of Rosenbaum’s causation testimony and limiting his opinions was reversible error	Plaintiffs say the expert’s testimony established causation and the district court improperly excluded it	Cook objected to foundational gaps; district court sustained objections and plaintiffs failed to make an offer of proof	No reversible error — record lacks offer of proof and contains no showing the excluded testimony would have supported submission to the jury
Whether exhibits/analyses from summary judgment could be considered to avoid directed verdict	Plaintiffs relied on exhibit attachments and prior analyses admitted at summary judgment	Evidence not offered or admitted at trial cannot be considered to defeat a directed verdict	Such summary-judgment evidence cannot be considered; only trial evidence counts for directed-verdict analysis

Key Cases Cited

Midlands Transp. Co. v. Apple Lines, Inc., 188 Neb. 435, 197 N.W.2d 646 (Neb. 1972) (affirming directed verdict where lost-profit proof was only gross-income testimony without records)
Evergreen Farms v. First Nat. Bank & Trust, 250 Neb. 860, 553 N.W.2d 728 (Neb. 1996) (lost-profits proof too speculative where plaintiff produced no business records showing profits or losses)
ACI Worldwide Corp. v. Baldwin Hackett & Meeks, 296 Neb. 818, 896 N.W.2d 156 (Neb. 2017) (discussing evidentiary requirements for lost-profits proof and admissible business records)
Millard Gutter Co. v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 312 Neb. 606, 980 N.W.2d 420 (Neb. 2022) (standing and real-party-in-interest principles)
Dietzel Enters. v. J. A. Wever Constr., 312 Neb. 426, 979 N.W.2d 517 (Neb. 2022) (damages must be proved with reasonable certainty; speculative evidence insufficient)
Lewison v. Renner, 298 Neb. 654, 905 N.W.2d 540 (Neb. 2018) (elements of negligence and proof requirements for causation and damages)