- 44 -
utation for growing quality plants. See Fabry v. Commissioner,
supra at 306. In connection with the operation of their nursery,
the Fabrys used Benlate on the plants that they grew and suffered
extensive damage to those plants, which they claimed was a result
of their use of Benlate. See id. at 307. The Fabrys sued du
Pont in the Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange
County, Florida. In that suit, they alleged that du Pont had
allowed Benlate to become contaminated so as to cause the damages
that they suffered from having used it on their stock of plants.
The Fabrys demanded a judgment for monetary damages from du Pont
under theories of negligence and strict liability in tort. Under
both theories, the Fabrys claimed that they sustained damages in
the form of the lost value of destroyed or injured plants, damage
to their business reputation, lost income, and the lost value of
their business. After mediation, the suit which the Fabrys
instituted against du Pont was concluded pursuant to a stip-
ulation under which du Pont agreed to pay them $3,800,000. See
id. at 307.
The parties in Fabry v. Commissioner, supra, agreed that
$500,000 of the $3,800,000 which du Pont paid the Fabrys was
allocable to damages for loss of business reputation. See id. at
307. The question presented to us in Fabry was whether, as
argued by the Fabrys, that $500,000 payment was to be excluded
from gross income under section 104(a)(2). See id. at 308. In
Page: Previous 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011