- 41 -
result of the jury verdict, was paid on account of the loss of
the plaintiffs' business reputation and the loss of their rep-
utation as orchid growers. The record in this case, which
includes portions of the record in the lawsuit, does not support
petitioner's contention that all, or even a portion, of the total
settlement amount, or the settlement payment, was paid on account
of the loss of the plaintiffs' business reputation or the loss of
their reputation as orchid growers. In fact, the attorney in the
lawsuit for the plaintiffs, Mr. Henry and Ms. Estes d/b/a Fred
Henry's Paradise of Orchids, told the jury in his closing ar-
guments that the plaintiffs were not claiming loss of reputation.
He stated:
All we're asking for here is the inventory. We're not
asking for business - or the loss of the business or
loss of reputation or any of that sort of stuff.
That's purely the value of the inventory. [Emphasis
added.]
The foregoing statements by the plaintiffs' attorney to the jury
in the lawsuit are consistent with the evidence submitted by the
plaintiffs to that jury with respect to the loss that they
claimed they suffered as a result of their applying Benlate to
the orchid plants of Fred Henry's Paradise of Orchids. That
evidence consisted of the testimony of the plaintiffs' expert, an
economist, that the value of the plaintiffs' inventory of orchid
plants was $3,254,559, to which that expert added eight percent
interest in order to arrive at the total loss that the plaintiffs
Page: Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011