## Facts

- Power Restoration International, Inc. designed and installed electrical systems intended to reduce customers’ electricity consumption.
- Power Restoration alleged PepsiCo engaged it to develop and manage a “Global Power Optimization Program” across multiple PepsiCo facilities worldwide.
- PepsiCo issued a February 15, 2011 letter of intent stating PepsiCo’s intent over the next 12 months to procure installations at PepsiCo facilities, conduct at least 150 facility audits, and issue 100 orders.
- Power Restoration alleged it devoted substantial resources to the contemplated PepsiCo program and had few or no other major customers.
- Power Restoration performed initial work, including audits and installations at several facilities (including locations in Turkey, Iberia, and Poland) and additional work at U.S. facilities under purchase orders or proposals.
- PepsiCo asserted Power Restoration’s work was substandard and ended the relationship shortly after the letter of intent.
- Power Restoration sued for breach of contract and related quasi-contract theories; at later summary-judgment proceedings, it sought lost profits for the unperformed portion of the alleged multi-facility program.
- Power Restoration’s lost-profits proof relied largely on internally prepared spreadsheets projecting revenues and costs from the anticipated 100 orders and 150 audits.

## Issues

1. Under Pennsylvania law, can a new or unestablished business recover lost profits for an alleged multi-facility program that was largely unperformed when the proof consists primarily of the plaintiff’s internal projections tied to anticipated orders?
2. Does evidence based on self-generated spreadsheets, without objective corroboration, satisfy the “reasonable certainty” requirement for lost-profit damages at summary judgment?

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for PepsiCo on Power Restoration’s claim for substantial lost profits from the unperformed portion of the contemplated program.
- The court allowed Power Restoration to pursue damages tied to work actually performed (e.g., invoiced audits/installations), but not speculative future profits.
- The court concluded Power Restoration’s lost-profit projections did not meet Pennsylvania’s reasonable-certainty standard, particularly given Power Restoration’s limited operating history and the lack of independent support for its forecasts.

## Legal Principles

- Lost profits are recoverable only if proven with reasonable certainty; damages cannot rest on guesswork or speculation.
- Claims for lost profits by new or unestablished businesses are subject to heightened scrutiny because they lack a track record of earnings.
- Internal projections tied to hoped-for sales or a contemplated volume of future orders, without objective corroboration (e.g., market data, comparable-business performance, or reliable expert analysis), are generally insufficient to prove lost profits with reasonable certainty.

## Conclusion

The court barred a new business’s claimed lost profits where the alleged future program was largely unperformed and the plaintiff’s proof consisted mainly of unsupported internal projections, failing Pennsylvania’s reasonable-certainty requirement for lost-profit damages.


Power Restoration Int'l, Inc. v. PepsiCo, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-01922, 2015 WL 1208128 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 2015)