Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AMY J. ST. EVE, District Judge. BP Amoco Chemical Company (“BP Amoco”) initially filed suit seeking a declaration that it had not breached a contract with Flint Hills Resources, LLC (“Flint Hills”). (R. 8-1, Am. Compl.) Flint Hills filed counterclaims against BP Amoco for fraud and breach of contract. (R. 14-3, Answer & Countercls.) After a nine week trial, a jury returned a verdict against BP Amoco in the amount of $41,688,648. BP Amoco now moves for judgment as a matter of law on the counts that went to trial or, in the alternative, for a new trial. For the reasons discussed below, BP Amoco’s motion is denied. Furthermore, BP Amoco’s motion to alter or amend the judgment on its declaratory judgment claim is denied. BACKGROUND This breach of contract case involves the sale of a chemical plant between two sophisticated business entities. In May 2004, BP Amoco sold certain rights and assets of its Performance Chemicals Business Unit (“PCBU”) to Flint Hills for over $300 million pursuant to a contract called the Asset Purchase and Sale Agreement (“PSA”). A chemical plant located outside of Joliet, Illinois (the “Joliet Plant”) was one of the assets BP Amoco sold to Flint Hills under the PSA. The parties signed the PSA on March 29, 2004, and Flint Hills assumed ownership of the Joliet Plant on May 28, 2004. I. The PSA The parties engaged in lengthy negotiations over the terms of the 131-page PSA, which extensively detailed the agreements between the parties. Two specific representations in the PSA were the focus of this lawsuit: (1) the representation regarding the condition of the Joliet Plant’s assets and (2) the representation of the Joliet Plant’s production capacity. After Flint Hills took over the Joliet Plant, the evidence at trial revealed, it ran into problems with both the condition of assets and the production capacity at the Joliet Plant. A. Condition of Assets Representation Section 7.1 of the PSA represented and warranted the following regarding the condition of assets at the Joliet Plant: All of the Joliet Plant process units and buildings are structurally sound, and all tangible Assets have been maintained substantially in accordance with normal industry practice, are in substantially good operating condition and repair for their age (taking account of their nature, normal wear and tear and continued repair and replacement in accordance with Seller’s past practice).... This representation and warranty was applicable as of the date of the PSA (March 29, 2004) and the date that the sale of the Joliet Plant closed (May 28, 2004). B. Production Capacity Representation The Joliet Plant produced three chemicals: (1) trimellitic anhydride (“TMA”); (2) purified isophthalic acid; and (3) maleic anhydride (“MAN”). These chemicals are used in performance plastics and coatings such as plastic water bottles. Section 7.1(d)(ii) of the PSA set forth the production capacity representation regarding these chemicals: Seller represents and warrants to Buyer, as of the date of this Agreement, and as of the Closing, as follows; The annualized maximum demonstrated sustainable production of the TMA, purified isophthalic acid and MAN production units at the Joliet Plant are 71,000 metric tons, 170,000 metric tons, and 51,000 metric tons, respectively, with the product produced meeting Seller’s standard specifications therefor, recognizing that such demonstrated capacity does not take into account planned or unplanned downtime. The PSA contains no other statements regarding capacity. Although the PSA contains various definitions, it does not define the phrase “annualized maximum demonstrated sustainable production” (“AMDSP”) or any of the individual words in that phrase. Similarly, the PSA does not specify how long a rate must be achieved to be deemed “demonstrated” or “sustainable.” C. Other Provisions The PSA provided that BP Amoco would indemnify Flint Hills under certain conditions for losses incurred that were greater than $75,000. Specifically, Section 13.2 of the PSA — “Indemnification by Seller”— provided: To the fullest extent permitted by Law, Seller, in accordance with the terms of this Article 13, hereby agrees to Indemnify Buyer ... from and against, any and all Losses incurred or required to be paid by any Buyer Indemnified Party ..., which arise out of, relate to or result from any of the following: (a) any breach of any warranty or representation of Seller contained in Section 7.1.... Further, in Section 13.6 of the PSA, the parties agreed that, except for fraud, the remedies set out in Article 13 are the “sole and exclusive remedies” available for claims arising out of the PSA. Section 13.6 of the PSA states: Except for ... fraud, any claim or cause of action based on, arising out of or relating to this Agreement or Implementing Agreements must be brought by either Buyer or Seller, subject to the applicable provisions, conditions and limitations of this Agreement or Implementing Agreements, whether such claim arises out of contract, tort or otherwise. Except for ... fraud, the provisions of Article 13, Section 2.8(b) and Section 8.1(b) are intended to be the sole and exclusive remedies between the parties for the matters covered by such provisions. * * * SELLER WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO BUYER FOR ANY LOSS OF PROFIT, LOSS OF USE, SPECIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES SUFFERED BY BUYER, HOWSOEVER ARISING UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, WHETHER BASED ON BREACH OF WARRANTY, BREACH OF AGREEMENT, STATUTE, STRICT LIABILITY OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION NEGLIGENCE OF SELLER.... EACH PARTY AGREES THAT IT WILL NOT SEEK AND HEREBY EXPRESSLY WAIVES ANY AND ALL RIGHTS TO OR FOR PUNITIVE OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AS TO ANY DIRECT CLAIM ARISING IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT. II. Problems at the Joliet Plant Flint Hills encountered problems with both the assets at the Joliet Plant and its production capacity after it purchased and took over the Joliet Plant from BP Amoco. The problems were extensive and included issues with the fire water system, the laboratory roof, the MAN reactor flanges, the motor control center buildings, the PIA sewer line, the underground piping, the tanks and water wells, the MAN sump, the cooling towers, the TMA and other tanks, the electrical systems, the PIA dryer, the boiler, and an abundant amount of other assets at the Joliet Plant. At times, Flint Hills had to shut down the plant to make repairs or to replace the assets because they were not in substantially good condition and could not operate. In fact, Flint Hills spent approximately $42 million to repair or replace the damaged assets and estimated an additional $56 million to complete the necessary repairs and replacements. In December 2004, Flint Hills sent BP Amoco a claims notice seeking indemnification for the losses that it incurred as a result of the misrepresentations in the PSA, pursuant to Section 13.5 of the PSA. That section required Flint Hills to notify BP Amoco of its losses in writing with “reasonable promptness,” “specifying, to the extent known, the nature of such Claim ..., setting forth the specific facts and circumstances that are the basis of such Claim in reasonable detail, the amount of Losses sought....” Flint Hills sent BP Amoco additional notices with significant details of the problems. Nonetheless, BP Amoco refused to indemnify Flint Hills, and the parties could not resolve their differences. III. Procedural Background On September 30, 2005, BP Amoco filed a declaratory judgment action against Flint Hills, seeking a declaration that BP Amoco did not breach the PSA or defraud Flint Hills. (R. 1-1, Compl.) On October 17, 2005, Flint Hills filed counterclaims against BP Amoco, alleging breach of the representations and warranties in the PSA and fraud. It also filed a separate complaint against BP North America, alleging breach of contract and fraud and raising multiple environmental claims. On January 5, 2006, Judge Moran consolidated Flint Hills’ case with this one. In advance of trial, Flint Hills moved to realign the parties for trial given that Flint Hills had the burden of proof on the substantive claims. (R. 480-1, Motion.) BP Amoco did not oppose the motion. (R. 537-1, Response.) The Court granted the request, and the parties were realigned for trial such that Flint Hills was the plaintiff, and BP Amoco was the defendant. (R. 539-1, Order.) The parties also stipulated to the dismissal of BP North America in advance of trial. (R. 774-1, Stipulation.) Prior to trial, the parties — both of whom were represented by experienced and talented litigation counsel — extensively briefed the issues now before the Court. The parties engaged in extensive discovery, including BP Amoco serving Flint Hills with 4,637 requests to admit. (R. 191-1, Mem., Op., & Order.) BP Amoco also filed a motion for sanctions, claiming spoliation of certain evidence, which the Court ultimately denied. (R. 362-1, Motion.) BP Amoco filed four separate summary judgment motions, and the parties filed 12 separate Daubert motions challenging the admissibility of the testimony of 17 experts. In addition, the parties filed approximately 21 lengthy motions in limine in advance of trial. The trial lasted nine weeks. During trial, 41 witnesses testified, two of whom testified twice, and the parties introduced over 1,000 exhibits that were admitted into evidence. After the close of Flint Hills’ evidence, the Court granted BP Amoco’s motion for a directed verdict under Rule 50(a) on Flint Hills’ claim for punitive damages because the circumstances of the case did not justify an award of punitives. Specifically, as a matter of law, a reasonable jury could not have found the necessary willful or wanton fraudulent conduct to award the extraordinary remedy of punitive damages. (R. 899-1, Order.) The Court denied BP Amoco’s remaining motions. The jury of twelve deliberated for approximately one week. On November 13, 2009, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Flint Hills on the breach of contract claim in the amount of $41,688,648 and for BP Amoco on Flint Hills’ fraud claim. (R. 910-1, Verdict.) The verdict form reflects that the jury based its verdict on the breach of contract claim on both a breach of the condition-of-assets representation and a breach of the production capacity-representation in the PSA. (Id.) Under the PSA, Flint Hills is also entitled to fees and costs. (R. 730-1, Order.) ANALYSIS I. Legal Standard BP Amoco seeks relief under both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a). The standard under both rules is difficult to satisfy. A. Judgment As a Matter of Law Pursuant to Rule 50(b) When ruling on a motion for judgment as a matter of law following a jury verdict, courts do not re-weigh the evidence presented at trial or make credibility determinations. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000). “Once a jury has spoken, we are obliged to construe the facts in favor of the parties who prevailed under the verdict.” Tate v. Executive Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 546 F.3d 528, 531 (7th Cir.2008) (citations and quotations omitted). Considering the totality of the evidence, courts determine whether the jury was presented with a “legally sufficient amount of evidence from which it could reasonably derive its verdict.” Massey v. Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Ill., 226 F.3d 922, 924 (7th Cir.2000). In assessing a motion under Rule 50(b), courts view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the party who prevailed under the verdict and “do not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence.” Tate, 546 F.3d at 532; Reeves, 530 U.S. at 150-51, 120 S.Ct. 2097; Learning Curve Toys, Inc. v. Play-Wood Toys, Inc., 342 F.3d 714, 721 (7th Cir.2003). As the Seventh Circuit has noted, “the standard is steep. A verdict will be set aside as contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence only if no rational jury could have rendered the verdict.” Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 560 F.3d 647, 658 (7th Cir.2009) (citations omitted). B. New Trial Pursuant to Rule 59(a) In the alternative, BP Amoco seeks a new trial pursuant to Rule 59(a). “A party seeking to reverse a district court’s denial of a motion for a new trial bears a particularly heavy burden.” Moore ex rel. Estate of Grady v. Tuelja, 546 F.3d 423, 427 (7th Cir.2008) (quoting Smith v. Northeastern Ill. Univ., 388 F.3d 559, 569 (7th Cir.2004)). “In ruling on a motion for new trial, federal law requires a district court to determine whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence ... the damages are excessive, or ... for other reasons, the trial was not fair to the party moving.” Kapelanski v. Johnson, 390 F.3d 525, 530 (7th Cir.2004) (citations and quotations omitted). A verdict will be set aside as contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence only if “no rational jury” could have rendered the verdict. Moore, 546 F.3d at 427. Federal courts will not “set aside a jury verdict if a reasonable basis exists in the record to support the verdict, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, and leaving issues of credibility and weight of evidence to the jury.” Id. The Seventh Circuit reviews new trial motions for an abuse of discretion, which occurs only when no reasonable person could agree with the district court. ABM Marking, Inc. v. Zanasi Fratelli S.R.L., 353 F.3d 541, 543 (7th Cir.2003). C. General Verdict Before turning to the merits of the motion, the Court first addresses BP Amoco’s argument regarding general-verdict forms. According to BP Amoco, where a general verdict form is used, the Court cannot uphold the verdict if any error was committed. The Court disagrees. Contrary to BP Amoco’s argument, the verdict form in this case was not a general verdict on Flint Hills’ claims. Flint Hills pursued two claims in this case — a breach-of-contract claim and a fraud claim. Its breach of contract claim rested on two separate theories — breach of contract in connection with the condition-of-assets warranty and breach of contract in connection with the production-capacity warranty. The verdict form had a separate question for liability for Flint Hills’ breach of contract claim and for its fraud claim. (R. 910-1, Order.) In addition, the form specifically differentiated between Flint Hills’ two theories of liability for breach of contract by directing the jury to proceed to a specific question only if its breach of contract finding was based in part on the production-capacity claim. (Id.) Thus, the verdict form was not general on the question of liability. The verdict form did not itemize damages based on Flint Hills’ damages theories. 1. Sunkist Does Not Require Reversal for a Single Error Relying on Maryland v. Baldwin, 112 U.S. 490, 5 S.Ct. 278, 28 L.Ed. 822 (1884), and Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Winckler & Smith Citrus Prods. Co., 370 U.S. 19, 82 S.Ct. 1130, 8 L.Ed.2d 305 (1962), BP Amoco asserts that because of the general verdict form in this case, any error — legal or evidentiary — automatically results in reversal. Unlike the cases upon which BP Amoco relies, the verdict form in this case was not “general” in the traditional sense as to the question of liability or defenses. It simply did not itemize the amount of damages awarded. BP Amoco does not cite any cases supporting that the verdict form must itemize damages or reflect the damages theory or theories applied by the jury. Such a requirement would make little sense, especially where — as here — the damages for the breach-of-contract claim were the same whether the breach was for the condition-of assets-claim or the production capacity claim. Furthermore, as the Tenth Circuit has noted, Sunkist “does not paint with as broad a brush as appears from the language quoted. As with all errors committed at trial, a litmus test for reversal is whether the appellant was thereby unjustly prejudiced.” Asbill v. Housing Auth. of Choctaw Nation, 726 F.2d 1499, 1504 (10th Cir.1984). As to evidentiary issues, the Seventh Circuit has found that as long as substantial evidence exists to support one theory of liability on a general verdict in a single-claim case, then it will uphold the jury’s verdict: [B]ecause the plaintiffs could have succeeded under one of two alternative theories of relief, and the jury returned a general verdict as opposed to a special verdict which, for example, could have included specific findings with respect to each theory of relief, we. need only find that there was substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict under at least one of the two alternative theories. Culli v. Marathon Petroleum Co., 862 F.2d 119, 123 (7th Cir.1988). The same analysis applies where multiple claims are involved in a case. See Lawndale Nat’l Bank v. American Cas. Co., 489 F.2d 1384, 1389 (7th Cir.1973) (distinguishing general verdicts with multiple theories of defense and multiple theories of liability). Other courts have reached similar results. See, e.g., Davis v. Rennie, 264 F.3d 86, 105-07 (1st Cir.2001) (adopting a harmless error approach and reversing general verdict only where it is “reasonably certain that the jury was not significantly influenced by issues erroneously admitted to it.” (citations omitted)). 2. BP Has Waived This Argument Further, BP Amoco requested a general verdict form and did not ask for any itemization of damages; it did not object to the format of the verdict form that went to the jury. BP has therefore waived this argument. BP Amoco’s argument that it has not waived any rights by failing to request itemized damages because Flint Hills bore that burden fails. In Kossman v. Northeast Ill. Reg. Commuter R.R. Corp., 211 F.3d 1031 (7th Cir.2000), the Seventh Circuit rejected a similar argument involving multiple theories of liability where the defendant did not object or specify its request for a special verdict form: Because the defendant never requested any special form of verdict, the jury only returned a general verdict for Kossman. And when a jury only returns a general verdict, we need only find support in the record for one of the theories presented to the jury in order to affirm the jury award. Id. at 1037. See also Eastern Trading Co. v. Refco, Inc., 229 F.3d 617, 622 (7th Cir.2000) (party “has only itself to blame for its inability to demonstrate that the jury was confused by the instruction” where party did not request special interrogatory and party claiming instruction was submitted to the jury on theory for which there was no evidentiary support). As Judge Coar noted in Dimensions Med. Ctr. Ltd. v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., No. 93 C 6244, 1997 WL 208387, at *3 n. 1 (N.D.Ill. Apr. 23, 1997): Because there was a lump sum verdict in this case, however, it is impossible to determine to what extent the award was based on any particular claim. Indeed, defendant makes this argument in its brief. This result is a byproduct of the defendant’s failure to submit or request separate and/or itemized verdict forms for each claim. By doing so, defendant took the risk that the award would be uninterpretable when contesting individual claims. Moreover, a lump-sum award is not a basis, as defendant urges, for granting a new trial. Cf. Jastremski v. United States, 737 F.2d 666, 670 (7th Cir.1984) (“The failure to divide the lump sum award into discrete elements of recovery does not warrant reversal.”); In re International Surplus Lines Ins. Comp., 1994 WL 502015, *3 (N.D.Ill. Sept. 12, 1994) (citing Robbins v. Day, 954 F.2d 679, 684 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 870, 113 S.Ct. 201, 121 L.Ed.2d 143 (1992)); Barbier v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 948 F.2d 117, 121 (2d Cir.1991) (“Lump sum awards are perfectly acceptable and are not subject to vacatur or modification because they are a lump sum.”). The court can find no prejudice to defendant where defendant failed [to] mitigate this obvious risk when it had the opportunity. A Rule 50(b) motion is not a vehicle for remedying the inadequate defense of a claim. See also Landes Constr. Co., Inc. v. Royal Bank of Canada, 833 F.2d 1365, 1373 (9th Cir.1987) (“When a jury returns a general verdict for the plaintiff after hearing alternative calculations of damages, we uphold the award if there is substantial evidence in the record as to any one calculation to support the award.”). 3. The Verdict is Supported by the Evidence Even if BP Amoco’s reading of Sunkist is correct, as discussed in detail below, it is not entitled to a new trial. The jury’s verdict was more than supported by the evidence, and BP Amoco has failed to identify any errors. II. BP Amoco Is Not Entitled to Judgment As a Matter of Law BP Amoco argues that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on various arguments regarding damages. At trial, Flint Hills sought the same damages for the breach of the condition-of-assets claim as for the breach of the production-capacity claim. Flint Hills sought damages for both the costs and expenses it had already incurred in repairing and replacing the assets and the future estimated damages to bring the Joliet Plant into compliance with the PSA warranties. The Court instructed the jury that: Flint Hills has the burden of proving a reasonable basis for its computation of damages. While Flint Hills is not required to prove damages with mathematical precision, the law requires that damages be proved with reasonable certainty. Damages cannot be based on conjecture and speculation. (R. 907-1, Jury Instructions at 46.) BP Amoco further argues that it is entitled to a new trial because Flint Hills failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the future estimated damages for Claims 9, 21, 56, and 77. In Claim 9, Flint Hills sought damages for the installation of the heating ventilation and air-condition system (“HVAC”) in the motor control center buildings. In Claim 21, Flint Hills sought damages concerning the waste water treatment project, including an air compressor used in connection with the production capacity of the Joliet Plant. Flint Hills’ Claim 56 involves future costs to replace an electrical system and Substation A. Finally, Claim 77 involves the repair or replacement of a CB-704 boiler necessary to run the Joliet Plant. BP Amoco asserts that Flint Hills failed to establish that the future estimated costs for these claims were “reasonably certain to occur” and that such costs could “be calculated with reasonable certainty.” Furthermore, BP Amoco contends that Flint Hills’ damages evidence did not satisfy the Federal Rules of Evidence because the future estimates were hearsay. Finally, BP Amoco argues that the PSA barred many of the damages Flint Hills sought. The Court will address each of these arguments in turn. A. Future Estimated Costs Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Flint Hills, Flint Hills established both the reasonable certainty of the future estimated costs and that such costs were reasonably certain to occur on each of these claims. BP Amoco’s arguments fail as to both elements. Claim 9 involved the motor control center buildings at the Joliet Plant. Rick Morris, Flint Hills’ Reliability Manager, testified about the condition of this asset and the fact that the HVAC needed to be replaced in order to put that asset in compliance with the PSA representations and warranties. (Trial Transcript (“Tr.”) at 4174.) Flint Hills received an estimate from Precision Control to conduct this work. Morris testified that the work on the HVAC system was reasonably certain to occur and that the HVAC provided the air filtration, temperature control, humidity control, and pressurization. (Id. at 4174-75, 4176.) The estimate from Precision Control was admitted into evidence without objection. (Id. at 4176-77; Trial Ex. 707.) The Precision Control estimate was for approximately $3 million. (Tr. at 4176.) In proving Claim 21, Mr. Morris testified about the future costs for an air compressor necessary to increase the production capacity at the Joliet Plant. Flint Hills had an Authorization for Expenditure (“AFE”) (Trial Ex. 1008) for $1.49 million that Mr. Morris had worked on with the Lead Rotating Equipment Engineer and the Senior Electrical Engineer at the Joliet Plant setting forth the cost to repair the air compressor that had been out of service for some time. (Tr. at 4206-07.) The Court admitted the AFE without objection. (Id. at 4213.) This AFE set forth an estimated $1.49 million to complete the work. (Id. at 4211.) Mr. Morris — who was the Reliability Manager at the Joliet Plant — testified that the air compressor was not working at the time Flint Hills purchased the Joliet Plant from BP Amoco. He further explained that it was necessary to restore the air compressor to service in order to meet the production capacity warranted in the PSA. (Id. at 4209-11.) He also testified that the air compressor work in Claim 21 was reasonably certain to occur in the future and that it was necessary to meet the production-capacity representations in the PSA. (Id. at 4212-13.) Rick Morris also testified that the future costs for the Substation A replacement project in Claim 56 were reasonably certain to occur. Substation A, created in approximately 1958, housed electrical equipment and distributed electrical power to the waste water treatment plant and other areas at the Joliet Plant. (Id.) As Rick Morris testified, “it’s very similar to a breaker box in your house, only it’s about the size of a trailer home. It’s bigger— much bigger.” (Id. at 4143.) It supplies approximately 10 to 15 percent of the power to the Joliet Plant. (Id. at 4144.) Evidence reflected that Substation A had “reached the end of its reliable operating range.” (Id. at 4146-47; Trial Ex. 710.) Morris testified that Substation A was not insulated and did not have any temperature or humidity control. (Tr. at 4151.) He explained the significance of these problems for this central asset at the Joliet Plant: The problem with that, with electrical equipment, is that you need to keep it temperature controlled, so that it doesn’t go through heat and cold cycles that would loosen up the connections on the bolts. Also, you can get dew point corrosion, again, with humidity. So, if you get condensation inside the building, that will hurt the electrical equipment. So, it needs to be kept clean and dry. Also, if you get dirt inside the building around the gear, that can cause arcing or tracking of the electricity. It’s called corona. And you’ll eventually create tracks, and the electricity will go a direction you don’t want it to go and you’ll have a failure. So, you need to keep electrical equipment pressurized and purged to blow air out of the building— any cracks or openings. You need to keep it at a constant temperature, as well. (Id.) BP internally recognized these same problems and the need to replace Substation A in 1999 and 2002. (Id. at 4156.) In order to remedy these problems, Flint Hills worked with Valdez Engineering in developing an estimate for the cost of replacing Substation A. (Id. at 4154-57; 4544-45.) Valdez Engineering estimated $6 million to fix the problems at Substation A. (Id. at 4545—46; Trial Ex. 5589.) Mr. Morris testified that the estimated $6 million was reasonably certain to be incurred by Flint Hills given the various benefits and costs associated with the project. (Tr. at 4545.) Claim 77 involved the repair/replacement of a steam boiler that generates 150 pounds of steam for the Joliet Plant to use in its operations. (Id. at 4201.) Morris testified that the boiler was in such bad shape when Flint Hills took over the Joliet Plant that they had to shut it down. (Id. at 4201.) In order to repair the boiler, Flint Hills looked into both replacing it and repairing it. (Id. at 4202.) Ultimately, Flint Hills decided to repair the boiler and obtained a $3.6 million estimate to rebuild it. (Id. at 4203-04.) Morris further testified that the future estimated costs for the repairs were reasonably certain to occur in the future. (Id. at 4203.) In addition, George Roman, who served as the project manager for the boiler project, testified that Flint Hills contacted Hayes Mechanical to provide an estimate for a portion of the costs to the boiler at issue in Claim 77. (Id. at 4627-29.) Hayes Mechanical visited the plant, then submitted an estimate for certain costs associated with repairing the boiler. (Id. at 4628-29.) Roman explained that the $2.5 million estimate from Hayes Mechanical (Trial Ex. 2094) was not for the full scope of the necessary work. After Roman received the estimate, he included additional items that were necessary to repair the boiler and created a total cost estimate, which the Court admitted into evidence without objection. (Trial Ex. 2093; Tr. at 4632.) Mr. Roman testified, based on the detailed total-cost estimate, that the best “expected case” was $3.6 million to repair the boiler. (Tr. at 4635.) The worst expected case was $4.5 million. Mr. Roman also testified in detail how he reached this figure. (Id. at 4630-36.) This testimony was more than sufficient to meet Flint Hills’ burden. Contrary to BP Amoco’s assertion, the detailed testimony and back up estimates were more than self-serving, conclusory statements. Mr. Morris’ testimony that the expenses at issue were reasonably likely or reasonably certain to occur was supported by the evidence of the physically degraded state of the assets at issue and the necessity of replacing or repairing them in order to run the Joliet Plant. BP Amoco asks the Court to essentially ignore this evidence and make credibility determinations against Flint Hills. Such arguments, however, are not appropriate under Rules 50 and 59. See Harvey v. Office of Banks & Real Estate, 377 F.3d 698, 712 (7th Cir.2004) (courts “will not second-guess a jury on credibility issues”). B. The Damages Evidence Complied with the Federal Rules of Evidence BP Amoco challenges Flint Hills’ use of third-party estimates to prove its damages. BP Amoco claims that the third-party-written-repair-cost estimates supporting damages for Claims 9, 21, 56, and 77 failed to qualify for the business-records exception to the hearsay rule. The Court disagrees. The Federal Rules of Evidence prohibit the admission of hearsay evidence — statements made out of court that are offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Fed.R.Evid. 801, 802. Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) sets out an exception to the rule against hearsay for business records. Under Rule 803(6), the following is excepted from the bar on hearsay: A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness ..., unless the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness. Fed.R.Evid. 808(6). A document prepared by a third party may qualify as another business entity’s business record under Rule 803(6) if that entity integrated the third-party record into its records and relied upon it in its day-to-day operations. The proponent also must satisfy the other requirements of Rule 803(6). See, e.g., Brawner v. Allstate Indem. Co., 591 F.3d 984, 987 (8th Cir.2010) (“Several other courts have held that a record created by a third party and integrated into another entity’s records is admissible as the record of the custodian entity, so long as the custodian entity relied upon the accuracy of the record and the other requirements of Rule 803(6) are satisfied.... We agree with these courts.... ”); United States v. Adefehinti, 510 F.3d 319, 326 (D.C.Cir.2007) (“[A] record of which a firm takes custody is thereby ‘made’ by the firm within the meaning of the rule (and thus is admissible if all the other requirements are satisfied).”); Air Land Forwarders, Inc. v. United States, 172 F.3d 1338, 1342-44 (Fed.Cir.1999) (“This court has not previously addressed the question of the foundation testimony necessary to admit documents produced by third parties not before the court under Rule 803(6) where those documents have been incorporated into another business entity’s records. Other courts of appeal have addressed this situation in a number of cases and have generally held that a document prepared by a third party is properly admitted as part of the business entity’s records if the business integrated the document into its records and relied upon it.”); United States v. Duncan, 919 F.2d 981, 986 (5th Cir.1990) (holding that medical records from hospital were the business records of the insurance company and explicitly recognizing that “there is no requirement that the [business] records be created by the business having custody of them”); see also Columbia First Bank, F.S.B. v. United States, 58 Fed.Cl. 333, 339 (Fed.Cl.2003) (third-party documents can be admitted as business records if they meet the other Rule 803(6) requirements and are “shown to have been received and incorporated, to have been relied upon, and to have indicia of trustworthiness”). Satisfaction of those requirements supplies a sufficient indicia of reliability to permit admission of documents prepared by third parties pursuant to Rule 803(6). Flint Hills met the mandates of Rule 803(6) for the admissibility of the third-party estimates. George Roman testified that he regularly received third-party estimates from outside contractors for work that Flint Hills performed and intended to have performed. Mr. Roman explained that upon receiving an estimate, [h]e would incorporate it into [his] project file, do a scope comparison to see if the estimate was in line with what [he] had requested, would check the reasonableness of the estimate, look for any omissions in the estimate, things that the contractor said that they could not perform that were part of the original scope. (Tr. at 4615-16.) While at the Joliet Plant, Mr. Roman testified, he followed this same procedure with third-party estimates. (Id. at 4517-20.) In addition, Mr. Roman explained how requested third-party estimates were incorporated into Flint Hills’ records: “I’ll set up a project file in my email on the hard drive on my computer, and then for copies of documents, I print files, notebooks, that are labeled with the project.” (Id. at 4621-22.) He also explained that he received the Hayes Mechanical estimate for Claim 77 and incorporated it into Flint Hills’ business records and relied upon it in going forward on Claim 77. (Id. at 4629-30; 4632-33.) Similarly, he incorporated estimates for the damages at issue in Claim 21 into Flint Hills’ files. (Id. at 4645-47.) In addition, Mr. Morris testified regarding the Valdez estimate for Claim 56 and how Flint Hills relied on it. (Id. at 4546-47.) Moreover, BP Amoco did not object to the admission of the third-party estimates at trial. In a motion in limine in advance of trial, BP Amoco argued that estimates prepared by third-party vendors do not qualify for the “business records” exception to the hearsay rule under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6). (R. 594-1, Motion.) The Court rejected this argument as a matter of law. (R. 767-1, Order.) BP Amoco also asserted in its in limine motion that Flint Hills lacked the requisite evidentiary foundation to admit the third-party estimates. As the Court specifically noted when it denied BP Amoco’s motion without prejudice: In light of Flint Hills’ contentions regarding the foundational facts it intends to establish at trial, the Court cannot say in the context of a motion in limine that Flint Hills will be unable to establish the required foundation for admission of this evidence under Rule 803(6). See Jonasson v. Lutheran Child & Family Services, 115 F.3d 436, 440 (7th Cir.1997). Nevertheless, the burden will remain on Flint Hills to establish the proper foundation at trial for admission of each third-party estimate, including establishing that Flint Hills integrated the document into its records and relied upon it. (Id.) The Court further ruled: Under Rule 803(6), however, the class of witnesses qualified to establish foundation for business records is expansive. Given, 164 F.3d at 394. Indeed, “[a] qualified witness does not need to be the person who prepared the records or have personal knowledge of the information contained, but the witness must have knowledge of the procedure by which the records were created.” Id. (citing Collins v. Kibort, 143 F.3d 331, 337 (7th Cir.1998)). According to Flint Hills, Joliet Plant employees will testify that the cost estimates were prepared in the normal course of business, that Flint Hills integrated the third-party estimates into its own records, and that Flint Hills regularly relies on the accuracy of such work proposals and cost estimates. (R. 653-1 at 5-7.) The Court will decide in the context of the foundational testimony at trial whether Flint Hills has laid a proper foundation for the admission of each third-party repair estimate as a business record. (R. 767-1, Order.) In other words, the Court specified that it could not address the admissibility of particular documents in advance of trial without having the benefit of the witness testifying about the foundation. Despite making clear that Flint Hills still had to lay the proper foundation before the Court would admit the third-party documents, BP Amoco nonetheless failed to challenge the admissibility of the documents at trial when Flint Hills sought to admit them. Accordingly, it has waived this argument. United States v. Haynie, 179 F.3d 1048, 1050-51 (7th Cir.1999). Finally, BP Amoco asserts that Flint Hills’ employee witnesses lacked the necessary knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to qualify as expert witnesses under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. As Flint Hills notes, BP Amoco waived this issue by failing to raise it before or during the witnesses’ trial testimony. Id. BP Amoco’s assertion that it preserved the argument by challenging the ability of these witnesses to lay the proper foundation in its reply to a motion in limine fails. United States v. Boisture, 563 F.3d 295, 299 n. 3 (7th Cir.2009) (arguments raised for first time in reply are waived). In any event, as the testimony at trial revealed, these witnesses were sufficiently qualified based on their extensive experience, training, and skills in the subject areas. C. The Jury Rejected BP Amoco’s Factual Arguments Regarding the Damages BP Amoco now re-raises various factual arguments regarding damages that the jury rejected or that BP Amoco failed to raise during trial. Such arguments are not a basis for judgment as a matter of law. 1. Journal Entries BP Amoco challenges Flint Hills’ reliance on certain internal “journal entries” to support its damages. The journal entries reflected expenses that Flint Hills had incurred and were part of the underlying data for the spending summaries introduced by Flint Hills at trial. BP Amoco contends that the costs for these entries were not supported by the evidence. While BP Amoco raised various arguments regarding the spending summary charts in advance of trial, it did not object to the spending summaries on the ground that the internal journal entries were unsupported. As such, it has waived this argument. See Combined Network, Inc. v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S., 805 F.2d 1292, 1298 (7th Cir.1986). BP Amoco contends that its Rule 50(a) motion filed at the close of Flint Hills’ case preserved this issue. Even assuming that it did preserve the general issue regarding the journal entries, BP Amoco now objects to an additional two entries (exhibits 11 and 13) that it did not raise in its Rule 50(a) motion. (R. 877-1, Mem. In Support at 2-3.) It cannot raise this argument regarding these exhibits for the first time in its post-trial motion. Combined Network, 805 F.2d at 1298. The merits of BP Amoco’s argument fail as well. Matthew Daugherty, Flint Hills’ Controller, testified at trial regarding the internal journal entries. (Tr. at 4878-87; 4903.) Mr. Daugherty used these journal entries when he created spending spreadsheets on a claim-by-claim basis, summarizing the voluminous documents underlying the expenditures on the cost collectors applicable to each claim. Flint Hills assigned a “cost collector” number prior to work beginning on a particular job or project and thereafter tracked the spending for these costs collectors or projects through “work orders.” All spending associated with a job or project is billed to the cost collector, including vendor invoices and warehouse items. These summaries were created and admitted pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 1006 to facilitate the presentation of the voluminous spending data at trial. As Controller, Mr. Daugherty had personal knowledge of Flint Hills’ payments for the costs collectors and journal entries, its accounting practices, and its accounting systems used to track the expenses at issue. Mr. Daugherty explained that, in the normal course of business, Flint Hills’ Accounting Department tracks spending for costs collections through internal journal entries. (Id. at 4903-04.) Reports are generated from these entries and Flint Hills’ management relies on such data and reports when making business decisions. (Id. at 4903.) Mr. Daugherty testified that Flint Hills’ accounting department regularly checks the accuracy and reliability of the journal entries and that journal entries were an important part of Flint Hills’ day-to-day operations. (Id. at 4904-05; 4725-27.) He further testified that back-up transactional information for internal journal entries was maintained in the Flint Hills computer accounting systems and that he personally reviewed all transactions summarized from the accounting systems. (Id. at 4747; 4881-84.) As such, Daugherty explained that the summary spreadsheets that he prepared accurately and reliably summarized the spending for all transactions applicable to each claim. This thorough and detailed testimony provided a sufficient basis to support the journal entries underlying Flint Hills’ spending summaries and for admission of the summaries. See Judson Atkinson Candies, Inc. v. Latini-Hohberger Dhimantec, 529 F.3d 371, 382 (7th Cir.2008) (“The admission of a summary under Fed.R.Evid. 1006 requires ‘a proper foundation as to the admissibility of the material that is summarized and ... [a showing] that the summary is accurate ....’” (citations omitted)). 2. Characterization of the Damages In addition, BP Amoco argues that the PSA barred Flint Hills from recovering certain cost of repair damages. Section 13.6 of the PSA specifically provides that “[BP Amoco] will not be liable to Flint Hills for ... loss of use, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages suffered by [Flint Hills], howsoever arising under this agreement, whether based on breach of warranty, breach of agreement, statute, strict liability or otherwise, including without limitation negligence of [BP Amoco].” BP Amoco contends that Flint Hills improperly presented damages to the jury that were incidental, consequential, or otherwise “improper.” It argues that the rental and testing costs fall within these prohibited areas. BP Amoco made these factual arguments to the jury, and now attempts to improperly reargue them at this procedural posture. The Court instructed the jury as to Section 13.6 of the PSA, informing them that Flint Hills could not recover for “loss of use, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages.” (R. 907-1, Jury Instructions at 31.) In giving the jury this instruction, the Court informed them that the PSA was “binding, and in the course of applying these instructions, you must abide by [Section 13.6] of the agreement in determining the amount of damages for breach of contract, if any, in this case.” Id. “[J]uries are presumed to follow the court’s instructions.” CSX Transp., Inc. v. Hensley, — U.S. —, 129 S.Ct. 2139, 2141, 173 L.Ed.2d 1184 (2009). See also Thomas v. Cook County Sheriff's Dept., 588 F.3d 445, 461-62 (7th Cir.2009) (courts “presume that juries follow the court’s instructions”). Because BP Amoco has failed to establish that the jury did not follow the instruction, it has not presented any basis for a judgment as a matter of law or a new trial. Furthermore, BP Amoco is simply arguing factual matters that the parties presented to the jury. BP Amoco argued to the jury that the damages in question were consequential and therefore not recoverable under the PSA. See American Elec. Power Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 418 F.Supp. 435, 459 (S.D.N.Y.1976); see also Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mtg. Corp. v. GMAC Mtg. Corp., No. 05:5-cv-260-Oc-GRJ, 2008 WL 3200284, at *2 (M.D.Fla. Aug. 6, 2008). There was a sufficient factual basis for the jury to reject this argument and to conclude that the damages were not consequential and therefore recoverable. This is not a basis for a new trial. Finally, Flint Hills also presented the jury with sufficient evidence for the jury to reasonably conclude that many of the damages which BP Amoco now contests as “consequential” were costs incurred in mitigating damages. As the Court instructed the jury regarding mitigation, A party cannot recover damages it could have prevented by taking reasonable steps and using commercially reasonable efforts when it learned or should have learned of the breach. The burden is on BP Amoco to prove that Flint Hills failed to minimize its damages and that the damages should be reduced by a particular amount as a result.... If you find that Flint Hills incurred costs in taking reasonable steps and using commercially reasonable efforts to avoid such losses, you must make an award to Flint Hills for such costs. (R. 907-1, Jury Instructions at 36.) The issue of “whether a party’s mitigation efforts were reasonable is a question of fact.” Alper v. Altheimer & Gray, No. 97 C 1200, 2002 WL 31133287, at *42 (N.D.Ill. Sept. 26, 2002) (citing Corlett v. Caserta, 204 Ill.App.3d 403, 149 Ill.Dec. 793, 562 N.E.2d 257, 264 (Ill.App.Ct.1990)). See also Smith v. Great Am. Rest., Inc., 969 F.2d 430, 437 (7th Cir.1992). Flint Hills submitted more than sufficient evidence that it incurred these challenged costs to keep the Joliet Plant in operation after the breach of the PSA and to minimize the ultimate costs of doing so. As the testimony demonstrated, Flint Hills incurred a substantial portion of these costs for replacing — rather than repairing — certain equipment when practical because the cost of repair was lower than the cost of replacement. Reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Flint Hills, there was more than sufficient evidence for the jury to reasonably conclude that the rental costs and the challenged inspection, testing, and remediation expenses were incurred by Flint Hills in order to mitigate its damages from the breach of the PSA and to reduce its costs of bringing the Assets into the warranted condition. Viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to Flint Hills, BP Amoco is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on any of these issues. Flint Hills introduced more than sufficient evidence from which the jury could reasonably have reached its verdict. III. A New Trial is Not Warranted In deciding on a motion for a new trial under Rule 59, the “district court must determine whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, the damages are excessive, or if for other reasons the trial was not fair to the moving party.” Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. General Star Indem. Co., 183 F.3d 578, 582 (7th Cir.1999) (citations and quotations omitted). The court “will not overturn a jury’s verdict as long as there is a reasonable basis in the record to support it.” Id. (citations and quotations omitted). A party seeking a new trial based on a district court’s alleged erroneous evidentiary rulings bears a “heavy burden.” Alverio v. Sam’s Warehouse Club, 253 F.3d 933, 942 (7th Cir.2001). The Seventh Circuit reviews “the exclusion of evidence for abuse of discretion and gives considerable deference to the trial judge,” and thus, “even if a judge’s rulings are found to be erroneous, they may be deemed harmless if the record indicates that the end result of the trial would have remained unchanged.” Id. (internal citation omitted). In other words, a “new trial is warranted only if the error has a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the determination of a jury, and the result is inconsistent with substantial justice.” Cerabio LLC v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc., 410 F.3d 981, 994 (7th Cir.2005) (internal citation omitted). BP Amoco seeks a new trial based on the Court’s interpretation of various provisions in the PSA; the sufficiency of the evidence to support certain claims; the jury instruction on the measure of damages; the admission of summary charts at trial pursuant to Rule 1006; the admission of certain expert testimony; the Court’s ruling that Flint Hills did not spoliate certain evidence; and various evidentiary rulings at trial. BP Amoco cannot meet its heavy burden of establishing that a new trial is warranted. A. Contract Interpretation BP Amoco first argues that it is entitled to a new trial based on the Court’s interpretation of the PSA. Illinois law governs the interpretation of the PSA. “In Illinois, as in other states, if a contract is unambiguous, the court will enforce it as written, without resorting to extrinsic evidence.” Curia v. Nelson, 587 F.3d 824, 829 (7th Cir.2009) (citing Farm Credit Bank v. Whitlock, 144 Ill.2d 440, 163 Ill.Dec. 510, 581 N.E.2d 664, 667 (Ill.1991)). Whether a contact is ambiguous is a question of law. Id. As the Seventh Circuit teaches: The question of contract ambiguity turns largely on whether the contract language is “reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning,” Susmano v. Associated Internists of Chi., Ltd., 97 Ill.App.3d 215, 52 Ill.Dec. 670, 422 N.E.2d 879, 882 (1981), although ambiguity may also exist where the language used is “obscure in meaning through indefiniteness of expression,” Platt v. Gateway Int’l Motorsports Corp., 351 Ill.App.3d 326, 286 Ill.Dec. 222, 813 N.E.2d 279, 283 (2004). Curia, 587 F.3d at 829. See also Lewitton v. ITA Software, Inc., 585 F.3d 377, 379-80 (7th Cir.2009) (“A contract is ambiguous if its terms are indefinite or have a double meaning.”). “The primary objective in construing a contract is to give effect to the intent of the parties.” Gallagher v. Lenart, 226 Ill.2d 208, 232, 314 Ill.Dec. 133, 148, 874 N.E.2d 43, 58 (Ill.2007). Under Illinois law, contracts are interpreted according to the “four corners” rule: “ ‘[a]n agreement, when reduced to writing, must be presumed to speak the intention of the parties who signed it. It speaks for itself, and the intention with which it was executed must be determined by the language used. It is not to be changed by extrinsic evidence.’ ” Camico Mut. Ins. Co. v. Citizens Bank, 474 F.3d 989, 992-93 (7th Cir.2007) (quoting Davis v. G.N. Mortgage Corp., 396 F.3d 869, 878 (7th Cir.2005) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). Courts first look to the language of the contract alone. Camico, 474 F.3d at 993 (citing Air Safety, Inc. v. Teachers Realty Corp., 185 Ill.2d 457, 462, 236 Ill.Dec. 8, 10, 706 N.E.2d 882, 884 (Ill.1999)); Gallagher, 226 Ill.2d at 233, 314 Ill.Dec. at 148, 874 N.E.2d at 58 (“A court must initially look to the language of a contract alone, as the language, given its plain and ordinary meaning, is the best indication of the parties’ intent.”). Under Illinois law, contract terms are interpreted according to their plain meaning unless otherwise defined. Utility Audit, Inc. v. Horace Mann Serv. Corp., 383 F.3d 683, 687 (7th Cir.2004). “Although words should be given their ordinary and accepted meaning, they must also be viewed in context, and the contract must be considered as a whole in order to ascertain the parties’ intent.” Id.; Gallagher, 226 Ill.2d at 233, 314 Ill.Dec. at 148, 874 N.E.2d at 58. Furthermore, it is long established that a construction should be adopted, if possible, which ascribes meaning to every clause, phrase and word used; which requires nothing to be rejected as meaningless, or surplusage; which avoids the necessity of supplying any word or phrase that is not expressed; and which harmonizes all the various parts so that no provision is deemed conflicting with, or repugnant to, or neutralizing of any other. Curia, 587 F.3d at 829 (citations omitted). Courts only look to extrinsic evidence to determine the intent of the parties where the contract is ambiguous. Lewitton, 585 F.3d at 379. 1. The Production Capacity Warranty Was Ambiguous As noted above, Section 7.1(d)(ii) of the PSA sets forth the production-capacity warranty at issue in this case. It specifically warrants that the “annualized maximum demonstrated sustainable production of the TMA, purified isophthalic acid and MAN production units at the Joliet Plant are 71,000 metric tons, 170,000 metric tons, and 51,000 metric tons, respectively.” BP Amoco challenges the contractual interpretation of this ambiguous representation. The PSA does not define “annualized maximum demonstrated sustainable production.” In advance of trial, the Court held that the production capacity representation on its face was ambiguous as to whether the parties intended the representation to warrant the capacity of each production unit running simultaneously or individually. (R. 319-1, Mem., Op., & Order.) Similarly, the Court held that “sustainable production” was ambiguous on its face. (Id.) Because BP Amoco did not move for summary judgment based on the use of extrinsic evidence to define the unambiguous terms, the ruling was based on the PSA’s plain language. The parties, therefore, submitted extrinsic evidence to the jury to support their respective interpretations of this ambiguous language. In reaching its holding that the language is ambiguous, the Court thoroughly analyzed the plain language of the PSA and the production capacity warranty. (Id.) Indeed, expert testimony at trial established that the production capacity representation was “unique” to this case, not used in the industry, and not defined in any technical literature. (Tr. at 1703, 1723-25.) BP Amoco has failed to raise any argument as to why the ruling warrants a new trial. Based on its construction, the Court instructed the jury as to the terms it found unambiguous: With regard to the representation and warranty that: “The annualized maximum demonstrated sustainable production of the TMA, purified isophthalic acid and MAN production units at the Joliet Plant are 71,000 metric tons, 170,-000 metric tons, and 51,000 metric tons, respectively, with the product produced meeting Seller’s standard specifications therefor, recognizing that such demonstrated capacity does not take into account planned or unplanned downtime.” “Maximum” is an upper boundary which actual rates may fall below. “Downtime” means when the production units are not operating and, as a result, have zero output. (R. 907-1, Jury Instructions at 26.) 2. Condition-of-Assets Warranty In addition, BP Amoco challenges the Court’s interpretation of language in the condition-of-assets warranty. In Section 7.1(d)(ii) of the PSA, BP Amoco warranted that “all tangible Assets have been maintained substantially in accordance with normal industry practice, are in substantially good operating condition and repair for their age (taking account of their nature, normal wear and tear and continued repair and replacement in accordance with Seller’s past practice).... ” In ruling on one of BP Amoco’s summary judgment motions, the Court construed the unambiguous term “all tangible Assets” to refer to “each and every tangible asset at the Joliet Plant — not the Joliet Plant as a whole.” (R. 348-1, Order at 6-7.) As such, the court instructed the jury: With regard to the representations and warranties that: “[A]ll tangible Assets have been maintained substantially in accordance with normal industry practice ...,” and “[A]ll tangible Assets ... are in substantially good operating condition and repair for their age (taking account of their nature, normal wear and tear and continued repair and replacement in accordance with Seller’s past practice).... ” The term “all tangible Assets” includes each and every tangible asset at the Joliet Plant. (R. 907-1, Jury Instructions at 26.) BP Amoco contends that the Court erred in this interpretation of “all tangible Assets.” Instead, BP Amoco asserts that the representation of “all tangible Assets” refers instead to the Joliet Plant’s equipment as a whole, not individually. For the reasons set forth in detail in the Court’s prior ruling, the plain language of the PSA supports the Court’s ruling. (R. 348-1, Order at 3-7.) See also Roche v. County of Lake, 205 Ill.App.3d 102, 113, 150 Ill.Dec. 407, 413, 562 N.E.2d 1210, 1216 (Ill.App.Ct.1990). The contract was not reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning. Instead, the plain meaning of the warranty in the context of the entire agreement made clear that “all tangible Assets” refers to each and every tangible asset at the Joliet Plant. Further, BP Amoco’s interpretation of the condition-of-assets representation would render meaningless Section 13.4 of the PSA, which provides that BP Amoco is obligated to indemnify Flint Hills for a breach of a PSA representation only when Flint Hills’ losses “attributable to the particular breach of representation or warranty which is the subject matter of a Seller Warranty Breach[] exceed seventy five thousand dollars ($75,000) (such amount, the ‘Minimum Breach Claim Indemnifiable Amount’).” A breach of the condition-of-assets representation under BP Amoco’s “as a whole” construction would necessarily result in losses greater than $75,000. Moreover, the reference in Section 13.4 to losses “attributable to the particular breach of representation or warranty” confirms the conclusion that the parties contemplated multiple breaches of each representation, which would only occur if the condition-of-assets representation refers to individual assets, rather than the Joliet Plant “as a whole” or the tangible assets “collectively.” B. Proof of the Production Capacity Warranty BP Amoco next asserts that it is entitled to a new trial because Flint Hills failed to prove the meaning of the ambiguous production-capacity representation at trial, and thus it is entitled to a new trial. To the contrary, viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to Flint Hills, Flint Hills produced more than sufficient evidence of the meaning of the production capacity. The evidence sufficiently supported that BP Amoco warranted the maximum production capacity of each of the three chemical units — 71,000 metric tons of TMA, 170,000 metric tons of PIA, and 51,000 metric tons of MAN — when all three units were operating simultaneously at maximum capacity. Dr. Russell Ogle, for example, gave extensive testimony about the meaning of AMDSP. (Tr. at 1729-38.) Flint Hills called Dr. Ogle as an expert at trial. Dr. Ogle is a licensed Professional Engineer who specializes in the investigation of complex industrial accidents and frequently performs production analyses of chemical-process systems like those found at the Joliet Plant. Based on his experience, he opined on the meaning of the ambiguous phrase and each of the individual terms. (Id.) This testimony provided