This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Plaintiff, a distributor of cleaning products, alleged that the Defendant, a supplier, engaged in predatory practices, including withholding products, charging retail instead of distributor prices, and spreading false information to the Plaintiff's customers. These actions allegedly caused the Plaintiff to lose customers and suffer financial harm (paras 3-10).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: The jury awarded the Plaintiff $6,590.20 for unpaid debt but awarded the Defendant $128,500 for tortious interference and $385,500 for violations of the Unfair Practices Act (UPA). The Plaintiff appealed.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Plaintiff): Argued that jury instruction number five misstated the law, the court erred in rejecting defamation instructions, the expert testimony on lost profits lacked foundation, the damages awarded were excessive, and the verdict form's "and/or" language led to double recovery (paras 1-2, 11, 19, 22, 33, 36).
- Appellees (Defendants): Contended that the jury instructions and expert testimony were proper, the damages were supported by evidence, and the verdict form was not ambiguous.
Legal Issues
- Was jury instruction number five an incorrect statement of the law?
- Did the trial court err in rejecting the Plaintiff's requested defamation instructions?
- Was the expert testimony on lost profits improperly admitted?
- Was the jury's damage award excessive or based on an incorrect measure of damages?
- Did the "and/or" language in the verdict form result in double recovery?
Disposition
- The Court affirmed the trial court's judgment on all issues except for the failure to reduce future lost profits to present value, which was remanded for correction (para 41).
Reasons
Per Benny E. Flores, Judge (Bosson J. concurring):
- Jury Instruction Number Five: The Court held that the Plaintiff failed to preserve its objection to the instruction and that, even if preserved, the instruction adequately stated the law when read in context with the evidence (paras 11-18).
- Defamation Instructions: The Court found that defamation was not a required element of the tortious interference claim and upheld the trial court's rejection of the instructions (paras 19-21).
- Expert Testimony: The Court ruled that sufficient evidence supported the expert's testimony on lost profits, and any disputes over causation were for the jury to resolve (paras 22-32).
- Damages: The Court determined that the damages were supported by substantial evidence and not excessive, except for the failure to discount future lost profits to present value, which required remand (paras 33-34).
- Verdict Form: The Court declined to review the "and/or" language issue, as it was stipulated by the parties and not preserved for appeal. The Court also rejected the claim of fundamental error (paras 36-40).