Jeffrey Burdick Sr., Wanda Burdick, and Jeffrey Burdick Jr. v. Interstate Power and Light Company, 16-0821

Background

The Burdicks (dairy farmers) sued Interstate Power & Light alleging stray voltage from its electrical system caused decreased milk production and reduced breeding, seeking lost-profits damages.
After an eight-day jury trial, the jury found Interstate 80% negligent, awarded $500,000 in damages, and the court entered judgment for $400,000 (80% of $500,000).
Interstate filed posttrial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or, alternatively, a new trial, arguing plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to calculate lost-profits damages (no variable expenses shown).
The district court granted Interstate’s motions, vacated the jury verdict, and entered judgment for Interstate—concluding plaintiffs provided only an estimated lost-milk revenue figure ($860,000) without evidentiary support for variable expenses or foundation for the lost-milk estimate.
On appeal, the Iowa Court of Appeals reviewed whether substantial evidence supported the jury’s damages award, considering all trial evidence (including the defendant’s expert exhibits and testimony) and whether the district court abused its discretion in granting a new trial.
The court reversed: it held there was sufficient evidence (including the defendant’s expert’s revenue and net‑income charts) from which a jury reasonably could approximate lost profits, so JNOV and the new-trial grant were improper; remanded for entry of judgment consistent with the jury verdict.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there sufficient evidence to support the jury’s lost-profits award?	Burdicks: Yes — jury could use all evidence (including Interstate’s expert charts and net‑income data) to approximate variable-expense ratio and compute lost profits.	Interstate: No — plaintiffs only gave an $860,000 lost‑revenue estimate and no evidence of variable expenses or proof expenses were zero; verdict speculative.	Held: Sufficient evidence existed; JNOV was erroneous because the record (including defendant’s expert) allowed a reasonable approximation of lost profits.
Was the district court’s alternative grant of a new trial an abuse of discretion?	Burdicks: Yes — court improperly second-guessed jury deliberations; evidence amply supported verdict.	Interstate: Argued new trial warranted because award lacked evidentiary support and appeared to be a guess.	Held: Abuse of discretion to grant new trial; reversed and remanded for entry of judgment on the jury verdict.
Could the jury rely on defendant’s expert exhibits to calculate damages?	Burdicks: Yes — Blue’s expert charts of monthly gross revenue and stated net income permitted a profit/expense ratio calculation.	Interstate: Calculations on appeal were not presented at trial; plaintiffs never gave a variable‑expense figure to the jury.	Held: Court may consider all admitted evidence, including defendant’s exhibits; those exhibits supplied an adequate basis for approximation.
May counsel argument substitute for evidence on expenses?	Burdicks: Counsel argued expenses may have been already incurred (i.e., zero avoided costs), supporting award.	Interstate: Closing argument is not evidence; plaintiffs made no evidentiary showing expenses were zero.	Held: Counsel argument alone insufficient, but other admissible evidence allowed jury to approximate expenses; overall verdict supported.

Key Cases Cited

Thornton v. Am. Interstate Ins. Co., 897 N.W.2d 445 (Iowa 2017) (standard of review for JNOV)
Smith v. Iowa State Univ. of Sci. & Tech., 851 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2014) (substantial-evidence standard explained)
Lathrop v. Knight, 297 N.W. 291 (Iowa 1941) (court must consider all evidence, not only plaintiff’s, on directed verdict motions)
Data Documents, Inc. v. Pottawattamie Cty., 604 N.W.2d 611 (Iowa 2000) (damages need not be shown with mathematical certainty; must allow approximate estimate)
Yost v. City of Council Bluffs, 471 N.W.2d 836 (Iowa 1991) (lost profits recoverable if not speculative)
Olson v. Nieman’s, Ltd., 579 N.W.2d 299 (Iowa 1998) (if uncertainty lies only in amount, recovery allowed where reasonable basis exists to infer damages)
Royal Indem. Co. v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., 786 N.W.2d 839 (Iowa 2010) (even weak cases may be strengthened by defendant’s presentation)
Bangert v. Osceola Cty., 456 N.W.2d 183 (Iowa 1990) (difficulty in ascertaining amount does not bar recovery where reasonable basis exists)
Bushman v. Cuckler Bldg. Sys., 421 N.W.2d 145 (Iowa Ct. App. 1988) (factual data that furnish basis for probable loss permits jury to assess future profits)
Lund v. McEnerney, 495 N.W.2d 730 (Iowa 1993) (jury deliberations and verdict process are within verdict absent misconduct)
Shepherd Components, Inc. v. Brice Petrides-Donohue & Assocs., Inc., 473 N.W.2d 612 (Iowa 1991) (standard for reviewing new-trial grants)
Channon v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 629 N.W.2d 835 (Iowa 2001) (scope of review for new-trial rulings)
Weatherwax v. Koontz, 545 N.W.2d 522 (Iowa 1996) (juror affidavits about deliberative process inadmissible to challenge how damages were reached)