Michael Taylor v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc.
Published: Feb. 13, 1999 | Result Date: Sep. 8, 1998 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: CV964314 Verdict – $743,200
Judge
Court
USDC Central
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Gary L. Frazier
(technical)
Findley Phillips
(technical)
G. Michael Phillips
(technical)
Defendant
David J. Weiner M.B.A., AM
(technical)
Facts
The plaintiff, Michael Taylor, was the owner of a company named Andesite of California, Inc. from 1982 through December 1990, when defendant ITW purchased the assets of Andesite from the plaintiff for $200,000. Andesite was generally engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of absorbent products designed to clean up a variety of chemical, oil and miscellaneous spills. Product sales in plaintiff's last year of ownership exceeded $1 million. ITW acquired the purchased assets of Adesite in conjunction with its ongoing business unit known as Devcon. As part of the acquisition of Andesite, the defendant employed the plaintiff. The plaintiff was to report to the Devcon General Manager or his designee and was to undertake, for and on behalf of defendant, matters, that the defendant might reasonably request, to enable defendant to enjoy the benefit of the plaintiff's experience and knowledge of the business and affairs relating to Andesite. The defendant was to provide to the plaintiff in good faith sufficient resources in terms of personnel and equipment to manage and carry on the business and to fulfill the expansion assumptions as set forth in another portion of the contract which contemplated sales exceeding $3.5 million annually. The employment agreement provided, in part, that the plaintiff would be entitled to receive commissions for five years after sale of the assets on a percentage basis on a calendar year paid on a quarterly basis when certain sales figures were achieved from the sales of the Andesite products. Thereafter, sales plummeted, and sales efforts were scaled back. After three years, the plaintiff was no longer employed at ITW. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant based on a breach of contract theory of recovery.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff's final pre-trial settlement demand was $5 million. The defendant made an offer of $300,000.
Damages
Loss of commissions.
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately two years and nine months after the case was filed. The plaintif filed a post-verdict motion for a new trial on the issue of damages only. The defendant filed a Rule 54 (b) motion regarding liability on the first three years of the contract. Both motions were denied. The plaintiff also filed a post-trial motion for prejudgment interest, which was denied.
Deliberation
seven days
Poll
7-0 (liability)
Length
10 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390