Diamond Claims & Investigation Services, Inc. - Page 37

                                       - 37 -                                         
          we shall address each of the following components of the proceeds           
          of the Farmers lawsuit:  (1) Lost profits damages of $1,497,016,            
          (2) punitive damages of $290,715, (3) attorneys' fees and costs             
          of $226,212, and (4) interest of $177,881.  DCI contends that               
          $1,121,18228 should be allocated to DCI and that $450,245 should            
          be allocated to the Diamonds as the owners of ETS.  To support              
          that contention, DCI relies on the selected allocation analysis             
          that was (1) prepared by Mr. Donnelly, the certified public                 
          accountant who was retained to analyze how the proceeds of the              
          Farmers lawsuit should be divided between DCI and the Diamonds as           
          the owners of ETS and (2) relied on by DCI and the Diamonds when            
          they allocated $1,121,182 of the proceeds of the Farmers lawsuit            
          to DCI and $450,245 of those proceeds to the Diamonds as the                
          owners of ETS.  According to petitioner, those amounts represent            
          the respective shares of DCI and the Diamonds (viz., $1,600,626             
          and $654,357, respectively) of the proceeds of the Farmers                  
          lawsuit as determined by Mr. Donnelly under the selected alloca-            
          tion analysis, reduced by their respective shares (viz., $479,444           
          and $204,112, respectively) of the attorneys' fees and costs                
          actually incurred in the Farmers lawsuit as determined by Mr.               


          27(...continued)                                                            
          spondent conceded that issue.  In fact, respondent states on                
          brief that she made no concession with respect to "the disallowed           
          contract services expense."                                                 
          28  That amount includes the indemnity damages of $63,159 that              
          are not at issue in this case.  See supra note 15.                          




Page:  Previous  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011