- 47 -
313. We also acknowledged that the plant damage alleged by the
Fabrys against du Pont "no doubt injured their business and,
consequentially, their business reputation." Id. at 313. How-
ever, we held that nowhere in the complaint is there any claim of
personal injuries, as that term is used in section 104(a)(2).
See id. at 313. We further held that there was no evidence of a
claim for personal injuries in our examination of the mediation
that preceded the settlement of the suit brought by the Fabrys
against du Pont. See id. at 313-314.
Based on our examination of all the facts and circumstances
surrounding the $500,000 payment that was made on account of the
Fabrys' claim of injury to their business reputation, we held in
Fabry v. Commissioner, supra at 314:
Since the record of the lawsuit that is before us
does not include any claim for personal injuries within
the meaning of section 104(a)(2), we do not believe
that the claim for injury to business reputation was on
account of personal injuries, as that term is used in
section 104(a)(2). * * *
We have examined all of the facts and circumstances that are
disclosed by the record before us surrounding the lawsuit by Mr.
Henry and Ms. Estes d/b/a Fred Henry's Paradise of Orchids
against, inter alia, du Pont and the settlement of that lawsuit
while the jury verdict was on appeal. In the complaint in the
lawsuit, Mr. Henry and Ms. Estes d/b/a Fred Henry's Paradise of
Orchids sought damages from, inter alia, du Pont on theories of
Page: Previous 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011