1 / 11

“Value” as a Measure of Rightful Position – General Principles

“Value” as a Measure of Rightful Position – General Principles. Overarching principle of all compensatory damage awards is to restore injured party to their rightful position But how do we implement “rightful position?” Value = the method by which courts measure injury/loss to plaintiffs

idona-leach
Download Presentation

“Value” as a Measure of Rightful Position – General Principles

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. “Value” as a Measure of Rightful Position – General Principles • Overarching principle of all compensatory damage awards is to restore injured party to their rightful position • But how do we implement “rightful position?” • Value = the method by which courts measure injury/loss to plaintiffs • 3 most common ways to measure value: • Market value – what a willing B will pay a willing S for property to change hands • Replacement costs – cost of replacing a lost/destroyed/stolen item • Income/capitalization of earning– the sum of money that must be invested to produce the same income stream from the property before it was destroyed or damaged

  2. Measuring Value in Tort Cases – Background onSept. 11th Litigation • Port Authority (“PA”) entered K to lease Twin Towers and related buildings to the WTCP • PA conveyed 99 year leaseholds re the towers to WTCP • As consideration, WTCP gave (1) a flat payment at closing and (2) a 99 year stream of future rental payments. Present value of the leaseholds is roughly $2.8 billion • After 9/11, WTCP sued Aviation D’s claiming WTCP property wouldn’t have been destroyed but for their negligence. Lawsuit seeks at least $12.3 billion. • Liability is NOT yet established. Decision comes after D’s motion on whether P’s damages are limited to market value of destroyed property IF liability is established. • Major questions: • Can P recover replacement costs or is P limited to market value? • Can P recover loss of use damages?

  3. In Re Sept. 11th- Market Value v. Replacement Costs • In a well-functioning market, market value and replacement costs are generally equivalent. But sometimes replacement costs are significantly higher than the market value of a damaged or destroyed item. • When does this occur? • What is the In re Sept. 11thcourt’s rule on whether to award market value or replacement costs when they are not equivalent? • Why would the court have such a rule?

  4. In re September 11th– Exception to Awarding Lesser Market Value • Special Purpose Property (aka “specialty property”) • Property for which there is no discernable market value – i.e., property which isn’t readily traded in a market • P’s can get replacement costs for specialty property • Why aren’t the WTCP properties special purpose property? • Weren’t the Twin Towers iconic symbols of NYC? Doesn’t that make them special? • What if the Washington Monument had been hit? Wouldn’t such an iconic property be a specialty property? • How are the Towers different from the Washington Monument?

  5. In re September 11th– Loss of Use Damages • P asked for $3.9 billion in lost rents from tenants due to loss of buildings. (These are loss of use damages ). • According to the court, why isn’t P entitled to them? • Is the court right that P’s will be in their rightful position without them? • Would it be different if P sought only the 10 years of rents that it took to rebuild the WTCP properties? • Is this consistent with Hatahley?

  6. Trinity Church - Boston

  7. Trinity Church v. John Hancock • Assume the church had been totally destroyed, what measure of damages would have been appropriate – market value or replacement costs? • Why? • Could Trinity Church build any replacement it wanted? • E.g., Eight times bigger out of Carrera marble?

  8. Trinity Church – the damage

  9. Trinity Church – the damage, cont’d

  10. BUT Trinity Church wasn’t totally destroyed: • After the damage, Trinity Church was simply closer to “takedown” (i.e., the end of its useful life) than before. • “Angles of distortion” method used to calculate how much of the church’s useful life was lost (p. 30). The unusual increase in the church’s settling was used to calculate damages and the assumption is the church will have a lesser useful life than if not damaged. • Has P really been damaged if it is using the church and isn’t planning to repair the damage until the church is fully at “takedown”?

  11. The Concept of “Present Value” • Trinity Church majority rejected argument that P’s damages should be reduced to their present value – What is that? • Present Value = the amount of money which if invested today would produce a future stream of payments sufficient to compensate plaintiff for future pecuniary loss resulting from a present injury. • Why did the Court reject the present value argument?

More Related