AMERICAN DIAMOND EXCHANGE, INC. v. Alpert
28 A.3d 976
| Conn. | 2011Background
- Defendant Jurgita Karobkaite appeals after remand for recalculation of damages on tortious interference and civil conspiracy claims.
- Trial court on remand awarded $103,355.68 based on defendant’s alleged net profits from diverted jewelry transactions.
- Appellate Court reversed damages on legal grounds and remanded for lost-profits calculation using the existing record and considering net profits and markup differences.
- Plaintiff, American Diamond Exchange, argues damages can be calculated from Schnee’s testimony and bank records; defendant contends evidence is speculative and insufficient for reasonable certainty.
- Judge Tobin on remand cited deposition and Schnee’s markup testimony, but the record lacked documentary proof of profit margins and acquisition costs; court ultimately found the damages award insufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lost-profits damages were proven with reasonable certainty. | Plaintiff contends Schnee’s testimony and bank records establish profits. | Defendant claims the evidence is uncorroborated and speculative. | Insufficient evidence to prove losses with reasonable certainty. |
| Whether the defendant waived evidentiary challenges by not raising them on direct appeal. | Waiver applies only if issue litigated previously. | Issue not raised in first appeal; waiver should not bar challenge. | Defendant not barred; evidentiary insufficiency properly reviewable. |
| Whether the remand permitted damages calculation on an incomplete record and credibility-based findings. | Record supports calculating lost profits under remand order. | Remand requires concrete, documentary proof; live credibility findings were necessary. | Damages cannot be awarded on an inadequate record; insufficient proof. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hi-Ho Tower, Inc. v. Com-Tronics, Inc., 255 Conn. 20 (2000) (damages must be proven with reasonable certainty; actual loss required)
- Waterbury Petroleum Products, Inc. v. Canaan Oil & Fuel Co., 193 Conn. 208 (1984) (damages must be supported by objective basis for estimation)
- Doeltz v. Longshore, Inc., 126 Conn. 597 (1940) (documentary or reliable evidence required to prove lost profits)
- Beverly Hills Concepts, Inc. v. Schatz & Schatz, Ribicoff & Kotkin, 247 Conn. 48 (1998) (losses of profits require adequately documented evidence to estimate)