Damages for Breach of Contract
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gwRGV-t3 and see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gnie3CYj and at https://lnkd.in/gHbQ3FWT and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4200 posts.
Posted on June 1, 2022 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at
and at https://rumble.com/v16ul9c-damages-for-breach-of-an-insurance-policy.html
Generally, the purpose of an award of damages for breach of contract is to compensate the injured party and provide the benefits promised by the contract. The general rule is that damages are meant to place the claimant in the same position as if the contract had been performed.
In the 16th century, when our English forbears began resolving disputes through trial by jury rather than ordeal or battle, courts were divided into courts of law and courts of equity. The law courts dealt with money damages for various offences like breach of contract, negligence or intentional torts.
In order to discourage people from breaching contracts the law allows various remedies to the party to the contract who lost the benefit of the bargain. In the event a breach is proved a court may award:
damages,
specific performance,
contract rescission, and
contract modification or reformation.
While British Common Law was forming damages were the province of the law courts while the other three remedies were handled by the courts of equity. In the 16th century the equity courts were handled by clerics who, it was thought, were better qualified than appointed law judges, to provide the fairness required for equitable remedies.
The damages allowed for breach of contract was limited to compensatory damages. These are damages for a monetary amount that is intended to compensate the non-breaching party for losses that result from the breach. The aim of compensatory damages is to “make the injured party whole again” but not put the non-breaching party in a position better than contemplated by the contract terms.
Damages for breach of contract were traditionally limited to the need to compensate the Plaintiff for the harm proximately caused by the breach. Damages must have been contemplated by the parties or be reasonably foreseeable at the time the contract was entered into. Contract damages do not usually allow recovery for unanticipated harm or injury, as do damages for injuries caused by torts.
Damages for breach of contract must be clearly ascertainable. Proof of actual harm and its cause must be established. Damages restore the Plaintiff to the position they would be in had the contract been fulfilled. In other words, Plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of the bargain. A Plaintiff suing for breach of contract may not recover an amount greater than what they would have gained had the contract been fulfilled.
Compensatory Damages
Compensatory damages are not meant to be punitive in nature. The goal is not to punish the breaching party for “immoral” conduct, but rather to put the non-breaching party back into the position he or she would have been in, had the contract been performed.
Expectation Damages
These are damages that are intended to cover what the injured party expected to receive from the contract. Calculations are usually straightforward as they are based on the contract itself or market values.
Consequential Damages
These are intended to reimburse the injured party for indirect damages other than contractual loss; for example, loss of business profits due to an undelivered machine. Consequential damages aim to address the flow of problems that reasonably result from a party’s breach of contract.
In order for the injured party to recover, the injuries must be a direct result of the breach and be reasonably foreseeable to both parties when they entered into the contract. Consequential damages are designed to compensate for secondary or derivative losses resulting from special circumstances particular to that contract or to the parties.
Quantum Meruit
A court can award one party payment for what they deserve for any work that he or she performed before the other party breached the contract. Translated from Latin, the term means “as much as he deserved.”
Statutory Measure of Contract Damages
In California, for example, in very limited circumstances, statutory law specifies the measure of damages. These circumstances usually are:
Obligation to pay money only;
Covenant of seisin (the possession of land or chattels), of right to convey, of warranty, or of quiet enjoyment in a grant of real property;
Covenant against encumbrances;
Contract to convey land;
Agreement to deliver quitclaim deed;
Agreement to purchase real property;
Leases of real or personal property;
Obligations of carriers of passengers, freight, and messages;
Warranty of agent’s authority, or
Other statutory schemes governing the transaction
Traditionally, breach of an insurance contract only allowed damages that were those specified above from law courts who would determine the monetary loss caused by the breach.
In addition, insurance contracts were subject to the courts of equity who could formulate a fair remedy to a dispute over a breach of contract where money was not an appropriate remedy. Equitable remedies involve the court ordering the parties to act or to refrain from acting.
Liquidation Damages
Damages that are specifically stated in the contract because it would be difficult for the parties to prove the exact amount of damage in the case of a breach. To protect the parties to the contract they agree, at the time of contracting, what the damages will be in the event of a breach.
EQUITABLE REMEDIES
In modern American jurisprudence judges sit as both law judges and equity judges.
Types of equitable remedies include:
Specific Performance
Specific performance is usually available when the contract involves some kind of unique goods or other unusual benefit to the other party, and ordinary money damages are not sufficient to make the aggrieved party whole. Real estate is often the subject of specific performance because, in most cases, each piece of property is unique.
The court of equity, being fair to both parties, will issue a judgment that requires the breaching party to perform their part of the bargain indicated in the contract. For example, if one party has paid a premium for fire insurance but the insurer refuses to acknowledge the existence of the policy the court of equity would require the insurer to recognize the existence of the policy and pay the benefits promised by the policy.
In such a situation, the court of equity would leave to the parties the obligation to determine the dollar amount of benefits available to the insured.
Contract Rescission
If the court determines that the contract of insurance was entered into as a result of deception or mistake, the contract which is the subject of dispute can be “rescinded” (cancelled from its inception as if it never existed). This is a remedy typically given when both parties agree to cancel the contract or if the contract was created through fraud, misrepresentation or concealment of material fact, or mistake of material fact. For detail on the remedy of rescission see Rescission of — 2nd Edition available as a paperback and as a Kindle book or at amazon.com by searching for the title.
Contract Reformation
The contract of insurance is rewritten by the court with the new contract reflecting the parties’ true intent. Reformation of an insurance policy requires a valid contract to begin with and often is used when the parties had a mistaken understanding when forming the contract. The equitable remedy of reformation allows the contract of insurance to let each party receive the benefits of the contract they believed they made and fix errors in transcribing the understanding to the written contract.
Limitation of Damages by Contract of Special Circumstances
When a contract is terminated according to its terms, damages are limited to those accrued prior to termination. If the contract contains a provision allowing termination without cause upon due notice, but the party breaches by terminating without allowing the notice period to expire, then damages are limited to those that could potentially accrue during the period of the required notice. For instance, an insurance policy is improperly cancelled before its expiration damages may result if the policy is not replaced and a loss occurs.
When the breach of contract is partial, prospective damages are not available. Plaintiff may recover damages only from the time of nonperformance to the time of trial. Damages may not be recovered for anticipated future nonperformance.
See the next video for more on damages.
(c) 2022 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 54 years in the insurance business. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected].
Subscribe to Zalma on Insurance at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.local.com/subscribe.
Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at https://barryzalma.substack.com/welcome.
Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com.
Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library/
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments
Post number 5300
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish
Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges
In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts
Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...