CORBIS CORPORATION v. STONE
Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One.
Filed: March 26, 2012.
As a preliminary matter we first address InfoFlows' contention that Corbis waived various arguments it makes on appeal by failing to raise them below. We address, in turn, the waiver issue for each of Corbis' arguments.
To the extent InfoFlows contends Corbis waived its argument that the integration clause in the Development Agreement precludes the fraudulent misrepresentation claim, InfoFlows is simply mistaken. This exact argument was raised by counsel in both Corbis' trial brief and in the CR 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law.
Sufficiency of the evidence of fraud.
To the extent InfoFlows contends Corbis has waived its argument that InfoFlows failed to prove damages for fraud, InfoFlows is mistaken. This argument was raised by counsel in Corbis' trial brief, although it was not argued as part of the oral CR 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law. Additionally, the trial court addressed the issue in its letter ruling wherein it denied Corbis' CR 50(b) motion on the issue of sufficiency. As such, Corbis did not waive this argument below.
Double recovery for inducement and breach of contract and Limitation on Breach of Contract Damages.
In one of its three CR 50(b) motions, the motion titled "Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Remittitur or New Trial Regarding Damage Awards", Corbis argued that the jury award of damages for both fraudulent inducement and for breach of contract amounts to an impermissible double recovery. Corbis also contended that even if it was in breach, the contract limited InfoFlows' damages to $1 million. InfoFlows contends Corbis waived these arguments, and they were not properly before the court in a CR 50(b) motion. The trial court agreed with InfoFlows in its letter ruling denying the CR 50(b) motion on this issue: