The Free & Clear Company v. The Narragansett Bay Commission
131 A.3d 1102
| R.I. | 2016Background
- Free & Clear operated J.G. Goff’s pub in a Davol Square building; the lease (5-year) ran from Sept. 1, 2000 to Aug. 31, 2005 and contained no automatic renewal option.
- NBC conducted a nearby Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) construction project beginning in 2001; construction activity near the pub increased in 2002–2003.
- On December 9, 2003, structural damage to the Goff Building (attributed to NBC’s pile-driving) forced the pub to close; the building was condemned and never reopened, and was demolished in Nov. 2005.
- NBC conceded liability and paid an initial $15,000; Free & Clear sued for additional damages (lost profits and business value).
- Trial focused solely on damages and the proper time period for recovery (Free & Clear sought losses from Oct. 1, 2002 to Nov. 1, 2007; NBC argued damages should be limited to June 1, 2003–Aug. 31, 2005).
- Jury awarded $680,277; trial court added prejudgment interest. NBC appealed, raising challenges to jury instructions, alleged speculative damages, expert testimony review, judicial estoppel, remittitur denial, prejudgment interest calculation, and denial of partial judgment as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recoverability of damages beyond lease termination (Aug. 31, 2005) | Free & Clear: evidence showed pub would have continued past lease date (renewal or relocation) and NBC’s representations induced delay, so damages beyond Aug. 31, 2005 are recoverable | NBC: lease had no renewal option; as a matter of law plaintiff cannot recover after lease termination | Court: Allowed recovery beyond Aug. 31, 2005—sufficient evidence that the business would have continued (renewal or relocation); Mahon inapplicable because plaintiff’s claim did not rest on an enforceable renewal option |
| Jury instructions and verdict form | Free & Clear: general verdict appropriate; jury instructed properly | NBC: requested instruction limiting damages end date and burden to prove renewal; objected to statement that NBC conceded damages before/after Dec. 9, 2003 | Court: No reversible error—instructions read as a whole; NBC waived one objection to characterization of concession; rejecting requested limiting instruction as improperly sidelining plaintiff’s relocation evidence |
| Sufficiency and review of expert valuation evidence | Free & Clear: expert (Wisehart) used standard normalization and treated J.G. Goff’s as ongoing business; loss and valuation evidence sufficient for jury | NBC: expert’s methods flawed; alternative expert produced much lower figures; jury award speculative/excessive | Court: Trial justice appropriately weighed experts; disparity explained by access to records and methods; jury award not excessive and remittitur denied |
| Prejudgment interest start date | Free & Clear: interest should run from date of injury/cessation (Dec. 9, 2003) | NBC: interest should run from date suit filed | Court: Prejudgment interest properly calculated from Dec. 9, 2003 (date business was forced to cease); review de novo and date reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Mahon v. Director of Public Works of Rhode Island, 98 R.I. 426, 204 A.2d 197 (R.I. 1964) (lease-renewal options require definite rent or formula to be enforceable)
- Yi Gu v. Rhode Island Public Transit Authority, 38 A.3d 1093 (R.I. 2012) (trial justice’s role when ruling on new-trial motions; superjuror standard)
- Botelho v. Caster’s, Inc., 970 A.2d 541 (R.I. 2009) (applicable standard for sustaining jury verdict on review)
- Juchnik v. Betters, 471 A.2d 222 (R.I. 1984) (trial justice need not exhaustively analyze every piece of evidence when denying new trial)
- Lennon v. Dacomed Corp., 901 A.2d 582 (R.I. 2006) (remittitur proper only when jury award is excessive or driven by passion/prejudice)
- Lee v. Morin, 469 A.2d 358 (R.I. 1983) (statute of limitations and accrual for property-damage torts—injury date controls accrual)
- O’Connell v. Walmsley, 93 A.3d 60 (R.I. 2014) (standard of review for judgment as a matter of law)
- McGarry v. Pielech, 47 A.3d 271 (R.I. 2012) (deference and inferences when reviewing JMOL)