Utah Court of Appeals
What evidence is required to prove lost commission damages in Utah? Francis v. National DME Explained
Summary
Francis sued his former employer DME for unpaid commissions and intentional interference with economic relations after DME allegedly sent threatening letters to his new employer about a noncompete agreement. The jury awarded Francis $24,000 in damages plus attorney fees.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals in Francis v. National DME addressed the critical issue of proving damages with reasonable certainty in employment contract disputes, particularly regarding lost commission claims.
Background and Facts
David Francis worked as national sales manager for National DME, a medical equipment company. Francis claimed he was entitled to commissions equal to 4% of the Salt Lake branch’s net profits, excluding oxygen sales. After DME terminated Francis for failing to report to work, he took a position with BSN Medical. DME then sent threatening letters to BSN claiming Francis was bound by a noncompete agreement, ultimately leading to Francis’s termination from BSN. Francis sued for unpaid commissions and intentional interference with economic relations.
Key Legal Issues
The court examined several issues: whether sufficient evidence supported the jury’s $24,000 damage award, the admissibility of evidence regarding Francis’s termination, the application of statutory attorney fees under Utah Code section 34-27-1, and whether Francis presented adequate evidence of causation for his intentional interference claim.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court reversed the damage award, reducing it from $24,000 to $9,700. While Francis provided testimony about $15,000 in first-quarter commissions and company-wide profits of $600,000, he failed to present specific evidence of the Salt Lake branch’s net profits. The court emphasized that when highly probative evidence is easily obtainable, greater accuracy is required in proving lost profits. The court rejected Francis’s “extrapolation theory” because assuming company-wide profits came entirely from his branch would result in a commission percentage far exceeding his 4% contract rate.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that Utah courts require specific evidence when proving lost profits damages, particularly when such evidence is readily available. Practitioners should gather detailed financial records showing the specific revenue sources from which commissions are calculated, rather than relying on general company financial data and asking juries to extrapolate.
Case Details
Case Name
Francis v. National DME
Citation
2015 UT App 119
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20120605-CA
Date Decided
May 7, 2015
Outcome
Affirmed in part and Reversed in part
Holding
A plaintiff must prove damages with reasonable certainty, and when highly probative evidence is easily obtainable, greater accuracy is required in proving the amount of lost profits.
Standard of Review
Insufficiency of evidence claims: evidence viewed in light most favorable to prevailing party; Evidentiary rulings: abuse of discretion; Statutory interpretation: correctness; Directed verdict: correctness
Practice Tip
When proving lost profits damages, ensure you have specific evidence of the revenue source from which commissions were to be calculated, not just company-wide financial data.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.