To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
Let’s take a look at the nearly $50 million in damages awarded to the Wineries of Old Mission Peninsula in the ongoing winery lawsuit. As mentioned in a story posted on the Gazette earlier today, the actual amount of the damages awarded by Judge Paul K. Maloney is $49,263,007.70. His 75-page Bench Opinion was released yesterday, July 7, 2025, outlining the litigation and his decision.
The original complaint filed by the wineries against Peninsula Township took place on October 21, 2020. According to Maloney’s Opinion, the damages period begins three years prior to the wineries filing their complaint — on October 21, 2017 — and runs until December 13, 2022, the date that the Township repealed the operative zoning ordinance and replaced it with Amendment 201.
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Donate and Keep the Gazette Going.
Therefore, the damages period is 1,879 days or 5.14 years. For calculation purposes, most of the wineries’ yearly damages will be multiplied by a figure of 5.14 years. As mentioned in the story earlier today, though, not all of the wineries were regulated by the Winery-Chateau ordinance during that entire period, which means not all of the wineries are awarded damages.
Lopsided in the Wineries’ Favor
“This case presents an unusual scenario,” writes Maloney. “Three things make these damages calculations more difficult than in a typical case. First, only the Plaintiffs retained a damages expert. So naturally, the proofs are lopsided in their favor.”
He adds, “When it comes to damages, the Township is limited to attempts at impeachment on cross examination and attorney argument. Second, the sheer size of this case, coupled with a long procedural history adds another layer of complexity. And third, the Wineries’ financial data is not in the record.”
A Reasonably Certain Calculation
Maloney characterized the wineries’ damages expert, Eric Larson, as “generally credible, but his report was not as cohesive or up-to-date as it could have been.” But the court accepted in part his testimony “as a reasonably certain calculation of Plaintiffs’ damages, especially in the absence of a competing damages expert” (neither the Township or Protect the Peninsula presented a damages expert).
Larson issued two expert reports outlining the wineries’ damages. In the first, he reported that there were $203 million in damages, based on gross profit figures. In his second report, he reduced the total damages number to $135 million.
As mentioned in the previous story, the court is granting damages related to Larson’s Schedules 6 (small events) and 7 (large events). For each winery, he collected the following information: on-season events per week; rate per person for on-season events; the typical number of people at a typical event; off-season events per week; rate per person for off-season events; the typical number of people at a typical event; and the estimated gross profit percentage.
He applied a 65 percent estimated gross profit percentage from RMA data (a group called the Risk Management Association, which is regularly used by experts in his industry). He also relied on his “accumulated skill, knowledge, training, experience, and professional judgment,” but testified that there’s an “inherent difficulty in determining lost profits.”
He used Bonobo as an example for how the calculations are made:
“Similar to [schedule 6], there’s an on-season and an off-season time period, similar calculations,” said Larson. “So for Bonobo, the assumption was three events per week, a rate per person for that time period, $250, multiplied by the number of people at that event would be 75 and then essentially that’s multiplied by 26, because we’ve got half a year, multiplied by the profit percentage. So that’s the on-season calculation. For off-season it’s, again, one event per week now, multiplied by $250 per person, multiplied by 75 people at that event, multiplied by the 26 weeks, multiplied by the gross profit percentage [from the RMA data]. You multiply and add all those numbers up and get to the lost profits calculation that’s in that column to the far right.”
He also noted that the winery business is cyclical and slower during the off-season, and he accounted for that in his calculations. The numbers also reflect the revenue the wineries would have generated if they were permitted to hold small and large events in a manner consistent with a workable zoning system and market demand.
None of the Wineries’ Financial Data Was Reviewed
However, the Township noted that Larson could not have properly calculated the damages, since he didn’t review any of the wineries’ current or historic financial documents, profit and loss statements, tax returns, or any other documents that could support a request for money damages.
“The court disagrees,” writes Maloney. “All the winery representatives ascended the witness stand, took an oath to tell the truth, and testified that the figures they gave to Mr. Larson were accurate. On this record, there is no basis to disagree, and the court found the winery representatives credible.”
The Township also said the calculations were too simple, and that all Larson did was take the damages matrix, multiply it by the RMA data, and get the gross profit. “The Township cites no case requiring that an expert’s calculations must be complex,” notes Maloney. “To the contrary, ‘reasonable certainty’ is the standard. What the Township casts as a negative is actually a positive because the calculations are easily replicated and scrutinized.”
The Township also argued that the wineries made no effort to utilize any objective facts or data to support any claims for lost profits. “Not so,” writes Maloney. “Each of the Winery representatives discussed the demand for group services. Every Winery representative explained that the figures provided to Mr. Larson reflect their usual business practices. The court does not require market studies and feasibility analyses when the proofs are overwhelmingly clear that the Wineries shared a thorough demand to host large and small events.”
And lastly, the Township criticized the large discrepancy between Larson’s first and second reports — nearly $70 million. “Rightfully so,” writes Maloney. “But Mr. Larson took the stand, explained his discrepancies, and updated his analysis to reflect more accurate figures. Ultimately, these mistakes — early in the litigation — do impugn Mr. Larson’s credibility somewhat. The court does not have another damages expert to credit, however. The proofs, which were subject to rigorous cross examination, are the proofs.”
Could the Township’s Former Attorneys Be Liable?
As Township Supervisor Maura Sanders mentioned in the previous story, it’s possible that the Township will pursue an appeal. It remains to be seen whether the damages are covered by Township insurance, whether residents of the OMP will be liable for some of the cost, or whether the Township’s former attorneys might possibly be liable.
In 2024, the Township filed a lawsuit against their former attorneys, Greg Meihn and Matthew Wise, as well as the attorneys’ current and former law firms. The Township claims the attorneys engaged in legal malpractice while representing the Township during the winery lawsuit. This lawsuit is ongoing.
“As a result of Defendants’ failure to timely list one or more experts and timely produce expert reports, the Township is now forced to bring a proverbial knife to a gunfight in the ongoing litigation,” notes the Complaint, “creating a critical disadvantage for it in responding to the Wineries’ grossly-inflated damages claims, and exposing the Township to far greater liability than it ever would have if Defendants had complied with the standard of care.”
Read the full Bench Opinion here. Read all winery lawsuit news and opinions on Old Mission Gazette here.
The Numbers
Here are the numbers for each of the wineries entitled to damages for Lost Profits from SMALL Events (Larson’s Schedule 6):
OV The Farm, LLC (Bonobo): Annual Lost Profits for Small Events, $108,160; (Schedule 6 Total) Damages, $555,942.40
Winery at Black Star Farms, LLC: Annual Lost Profits for Small Events, $54,080; Damages, $277,971.20
Bowers Harbor Vineyards & Winery, Inc.: Annual Lost Profits for Small Events, $208,208; Damages, $1,070,189.12
Brys Winery, LLC: Annual Lost Profits for Small Events, $163,592; Damages, $840,862.88
Chateau Operations, Ltd. (Chateau Chantal): Annual Lost Profits for Small Events, $106,470; Damages, $547,255.80
Grape Harbor, Inc. (Peninsula Cellars): Annual Lost Profits for Small Events, $53,525; Damages, $275,118.50
Montague Development, LLC (Hawthorne Vineyards): Annual Lost Profits for Small Events, $54,080; Damages, $277,971.20
Tabone Vineyards, LLC: Annual Lost Profits for Small Events, $182,182; Damages, $936,415.48
Two Lads, LLC: Annual Lost Profits for Small Events, $260,260; Damages, $1,337,736.40
Villa Mari, LLC: Annual Lost Profits for Small Events, $218,855; Damages, $1,124,914.70
Here are the numbers for each of the wineries entitled to damages for Lost Profits from LARGE Events (Larson’s Schedule 7):
OV The Farm, LLC (Bonobo): Annual Lost Profits for Large Events, $1,267,500 (October 2020 through June 2022), $887,250 (July 2022 through December 2022); (Schedule 7 Total) Damages, $6,393,837.50
Note: Bonobo’s damages are reduced by 30 percent after June 2022 because Bonobo began to host events after the court’s original summary judgment opinion. Bonobo has two damages periods: one from October 21, 2017 through July 1, 2022, and one from July 1, 2022 through December 13, 2022. Bonobo was restricted for 1714 days (4.69 years) under the first figure ($1,267,500 annual lost profits), and restricted for 165 days (.45 years) under the second figure ($887,250 annual lost profits).
Winery at Black Star Farms, LLC: Annual Lost Profits for Large Events, $0
Bowers Harbor Vineyards & Winery, Inc.: Annual Lost Profits for Large Events, $2,184,000; Damages, $7,403.760
Brys Winery, LLC: Annual Lost Profits for Large Events, $1,384,250; Damages, $7,115,045
Chateau Operations, Ltd. (Chateau Chantal): Annual Lost Profits for Large Events, $2,281,500; Damages, $11,726,910
Chateau Grand Traverse, Ltd.: Annual Lost Profits for Large Events, $612,625; Damages, $3,148,892.50
Grape Harbor, Inc. (Peninsula Cellars): Annual Lost Profits for Large Events, $0
Montague Development, LLC (Hawthorne Vineyards): Annual Lost Profits for Large Events, $422,500; Damages, $1,018,225
Tabone Vineyards, LLC: Annual Lost Profits for Large Events, $0
Two Lads, LLC: Annual Lost Profits for Large Events, $0
Villa Mari, LLC: Annual Lost Profits for Large Events, $1,104,000; Damages, $5,211,960
Also Read…
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
We used to tell Bob B., ” Gee Bob, you really gonna take a chance on grapes up here?” Turns out grapes grew really good. But also turns out, that wasn’t where the real money was.
The judge failed to consider that COVID closed all public events from March 2020 to June 2021? Sounds like an easy change in the appeal process. There, I just saved the township more than 20%.. so $10M.
I also think the $250 per person is highly inflated and the profit margins noted in the lawsuit were not realistic. The appeal should be able to convince a judge to further reduce the award.