Background
Waste Management sold Dasht two adjacent parcels in 2015: a billboard parcel reached by an easement across Waste Management land, and a parcel later discovered to contain an underground Georgia Power line serving Waste Management’s facility. After Dasht’s owner, Michael Erfani, built a road in the easement area, Waste Management changed the gate code and restricted access.
Dasht alleged that Waste Management interfered with use of the billboard parcel, that an employee negligently misrepresented he could restore access in exchange for payments, and that Waste Management delayed consenting to relocation of the power line. A jury awarded Dasht $50,000 for interference with the billboard parcel, $10,000 for negligent misrepresentation, $320,000 for interference with property rights concerning the power-line parcel, and attorney fees. The trial court denied Waste Management’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed. Dasht did not establish an injury supporting the billboard-parcel interference award that was distinct from its easement theory or its negligent-misrepresentation theory. And although Erfani wrote checks totaling $12,250 to the employee, the checks came from accounts of other companies Erfani owned—not Dasht—and Dasht identified no evidence that it itself suffered a recoverable pecuniary loss.
The court held there was evidence from which the jury could find that Waste Management interfered with Dasht’s property rights by delaying consent to relocate the power line. But Dasht offered no evidence from which a jury could fairly estimate damages: it showed only that development was delayed, without evidence about the planned project, its scope, costs, or the delay’s financial impact. Because all substantive awards failed, the attorney-fee award also could not stand.
Key Takeaways
- A plaintiff may not obtain overlapping recovery for the same injury under different theories.
- Negligent-misrepresentation damages require proof that the plaintiff itself suffered pecuniary loss.
- Even general damages for interference with property rights require evidence allowing a jury to reasonably estimate compensation.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that evidence of wrongful conduct alone does not sustain a damages verdict. Property owners claiming interference must connect the conduct to proof of loss, while business entities must establish damages suffered by the named plaintiff rather than affiliated owners or companies.