Huntsman International, L.L.C. and Rubicon, L.L.C. v. Praxair, Inc.
401 So.3d 75
La. Ct. App.2024Background
- The case involves a breach of contract dispute between Huntsman International, L.L.C. (a chemical manufacturer) and Praxair, Inc. (now Linde, an industrial gas supplier) regarding four industrial gas supply contracts from 1970–1998.
- These contracts required Praxair to supply specific daily quantities of hydrogen and carbon monoxide to Huntsman’s Geismar, Louisiana plant; disruptions occurred between September 2004 and December 2013.
- Huntsman alleged repeated supply disruptions caused lost profits from missed spot sales (as opposed to contract sales) and cover damages from having to buy backup gases from other suppliers.
- After a three-week trial, a jury awarded Huntsman over $93 million, finding lost profits of $88M and cover damages of $4.99M.
- Praxair appealed, challenging the evidence and methodology backing the lost profits award, and the alleged surprise in damages calculation at trial, also asserting that a new trial was warranted due to newly discovered evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of Review for Damages Calculation | No legal error; standard manifest error applies as methodology was disclosed and explored at trial. | District court erred by permitting new damages theory at trial "ambushing" defense; de novo review required. | No legal error; manifest error review applies. |
| Evidence Supporting Lost Sales/Lost Profits | Testimony, documents, and expert evidence show production loss equaled missed spot sales in a "hot" market. | Huntsman did not prove actual lost sales or that loss was attributable to Praxair; claims are speculative and not supported by expert testimony. | Sufficient evidence supported lost sales and profits; jury's finding not manifestly erroneous. |
| Damages Award in Excess of Expert's Calculation | Jury could credit testimony that expert's margin methodology understated damages; jurors can apply higher spot market margins. | Jury should have been limited to expert’s $37.5M calculation; award beyond this is unsupported speculation without expert input. | Jurors free to weigh evidence and use higher margins for spot sales; award affirmed. |
| Denial of New Trial Based on "New Evidence" | Affidavits offered as new evidence were not truly new and affiant available at trial; no basis for new trial. | Newly discovered affidavits show closing argument was improper, justifying new trial. | No abuse of discretion in denying new trial; no real "new evidence" presented. |
Key Cases Cited
- Payphone Connection Plus, Inc. v. Wagners Chef, LLC, 276 So.3d 589 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2019) (elements of breach of contract: contract existence, breach, damages)
- Breton Sound Oyster Co. v. Stiel Ins. Co. of New Orleans Inc., 299 So.3d 80 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2018) (standard for reviewing lost profits damages; burden of proof)
- Cox, Cox, Filo, Camel & Wilson, LLC v. La. Workers’ Comp. Corp., 338 So.3d 1148 (La. 2022) (lost profits as special damages require only reasonable certainty)
- Citadel Broadcasting Corp. v. AXIS U.S. Insurance Co., 162 So.3d 470 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2015) (burden is not on plaintiff to prove lost sales on a customer-by-customer basis)
- Johnston v. Vincent, 359 So.3d 896 (La. 2023) (jury may accept or reject expert testimony and substitute common sense)