BDO Seidman, LLP v. Mindis Acquisition Corp.

20 Citing cases

  1. Atlando Holdings, LLC v. BDO Seidman, LLP

    660 S.E.2d 463 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 2 times

    Atlando Holdings, LLC f/k/a Mindis Acquisition Corporation (MAC) sued the accounting firm of BDO Seidman, LLP for negligent misrepresentation in connection with MAC's 1993 purchase of Mindis Corporation. On appeal following a jury trial and a jury verdict for $44 million in favor of MAC (the 1999 trial), the Supreme Court of Georgia held that the trial court had used the wrong measure of damages. BDO Seidman, LLP v. Mindis Acquisition Corp., 276 Ga. 311 ( 578 SE2d 400) (2003) ( Mindis II). The case was then retried on the issue of damages only (the 2005 trial), and the jury awarded MAC zero damages. MAC now appeals.

  2. MINDIS ACQ. CORP. v. BDO SEIDMAN

    587 S.E.2d 414 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003)

    BARNES, Judge. In BDO Seidman, L.L.P. v. Mindis Acquisition Corp., 276 Ga. 311 ( 578 S.E.2d 400) (2003), the Supreme Court reversed Division 4 of our decision in Mindis Acquisition Corp. v. BDO Seidman, LLP., 253 Ga. App. 360 ( 559 S.E.2d 111) (2002), in which we affirmed the trial court's rulings denying BDO Seidman's motion in limine and refusing to give its requested charge on the proper measure of damages, and held that "a new trial utilizing the proper measure of damages is required." BDO Seidman, supra, 276 Ga. at 313.

  3. N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Grant

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-CV-101 (MTT) (M.D. Ga. Mar. 28, 2016)   Cited 2 times

    Moreover, "the amount of damages awarded for negligent misrepresentation is measured by an 'out-of-pocket' standard," rather than a benefit-of-the-bargain standard. BDO Seidman, LLP v. Mindis Acquisition Corp., 276 Ga. 311, 311, 578 S.E.2d 400, 401 (2003) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552B). "The out-of-pocket measure of damages is consistent with Georgia's general measure of damages in negligence cases, which seeks to place the injured party in the same place it would have been had there been no injury or breach of duty."

  4. Atl. Geoscience, Inc. v. Phx. Dev. & Land Inv., LLC

    341 Ga. App. 81 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 3 times
    Affirming denial of motion to dismiss appeal under OCGA § 5-6-48 (c) where undisputed evidence showed that transcripts could not have been prepared because of court reporter’s health

    Georgia law permits the recovery of certain types of economic losses in an action, such as this, where the plaintiff alleges professional negligence resulting in a misrepresentation. See BDO Seidman v. Mindis Acquisition Corp., 276 Ga. 311 , 311-312 (1) (578 SE2d 400 ) (2003). Georgia has adopted the rule, enunciated in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552, that

  5. Royal Capital Development, LLC v. Maryland Casualty Co.

    688 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2012)

    John Thurmond & Assoc.v. Kennedy, 284 Ga. 469, 668 S.E.2d 666 (2008). See BDO Seidman v. Mindis Acquisition Corp. 276 Ga. 311(1), 578 S.E.2d 400 (2003); Redman Dev. Corp. v. Piedmont Heating, etc., 128 Ga.App. 447, 197 S.E.2d 167 (1973). Moreover, this Court has long considered diminution in value to be an element in determining the proper measure of damages to real property.

  6. Erler v. Hasbro, Inc.

    506 F. Supp. 3d 1275 (N.D. Ga. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    Moreover, as the Atlantic Geoscience Court explained, "Our Supreme Court has explained that this type of loss is measured by an ‘out-of-pocket’ standard, not a ‘benefit-of-the-bargain’ standard." 799 S.E.2d at 246 (citing BDO Seidman, LLP v. Mindis Acquisition Corp. , 276 Ga. 311, 312-313 (1), 578 S.E.2d 400 (2003) ). It is undisputed that Plaintiffs received full refunds for their attempted purchases and therefore experienced no "out-of-pocket" losses.

  7. Chesapeake Employers' Ins. Co. v. Eades

    77 F. Supp. 3d 1241 (N.D. Ga. 2015)   Cited 5 times
    Finding allegations that the defendants committed multiple acts of mail and wire fraud over two years and two months adequate to survive a motion to dismiss

    The damages recoverable for a negligent misrepresentation are those necessary to compensate the plaintiff for the pecuniary loss to him of which the misrepresentation is a legal cause, including (a) The difference between the value of what he has received in the transaction and its purchase price or other value given for it; and (b) Pecuniary loss suffered otherwise as a consequence of the plaintiff's reliance upon the representation.BDO Seidman, LLP v. Mindis Acquisition Corp., 276 Ga. 311, 578 S.E.2d 400, 401 (2003). Defendants argue that “uncollected premiums” or “increased risk” on the insurance contract are not out-of-pocket losses.

  8. Glob. Payments, Inc. v. Incomm Fin. Servs.

    308 Ga. 842 (Ga. 2020)   Cited 7 times

    "In [ Robert ,] this Court first recognized a claim for negligent misrepresentation and adopted the liability standard set forth in section 552 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts." BDO Seidman, LLP v. Mindis Acquisition Corp. , 276 Ga. 311, 311-312 (1), 578 S.E.2d 400 (2003). Under the standard adopted in Robert ,

  9. MCI Communications Services, Inc. v. CMES, Inc.

    291 Ga. 461 (Ga. 2012)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that “loss of use damages are only recoverable if the personal property was impaired but not destroyed” based on the rationale that the ceiling for damages for destroyed property is the reasonable full market value

    See also John Thurmond & Assoc. v. Kennedy, 284 Ga. 469(1), 668 S.E.2d 666 (2008). In a negligence action, “an out-of-pocket measure of damages is commensurate with the culpability of the tortfeasor, who acted negligently, rather than intentionally or maliciously. [Cit.]” BDO Seidman v. Mindis Acquisition Corp., 276 Ga. 311, 312(1), 578 S.E.2d 400 (2003). “ ‘The rationale of damages, as in this case, is to compensate the plaintiff and not to unreasonably burden the defendant beyond the point of compensating the plaintiff.’ ”

  10. Royal Capital Development, LLC v. Maryland Casualty Co.

    291 Ga. 262 (Ga. 2012)   Cited 25 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "loss" has a similar meaning, when not otherwise defined, in insurance policies covering real property

    John Thurmond & Assoc. v. Kennedy, 284 Ga. 469, 668 S.E.2d 666 (2008). See BDO Seidman v. Mindis Acquisition Corp., 276 Ga. 311(1), 578 S.E.2d 400 (2003); Redman Dev. Corp. v. Piedmont Heating, etc., 128 Ga.App. 447, 197 S.E.2d 167 (1973). Moreover, this Court has long considered diminution in value to be an element in determining the proper measure of damages to real property.