Truck Manufacturer Fights $58.9M Verdict Over Executive Poaching Claims

A federal jury in Illinois awarded $58.9 million to Sonrai Systems after finding that garbage truck manufacturer Heil Co. and executive Anthony Romano intentionally undermined the company's proprietary technology by recruiting a former Sonrai executive. The June verdict concluded a nearly decade-long legal battle, in which Sonrai alleged Heil acted in bad faith after its CEO declined an acquisition offer.

According to the lawsuit, Heil initially sought to acquire Sonrai Systems to gain access to its fleet management technology, known as the Vector system. When Sonrai CEO Christopher Flood refused to sell, Heil allegedly hired Romano, Sonrai’s former executive vice president, to develop a competing product that would mimic Vector. The jury ultimately found Heil and Romano liable for breaching fiduciary duties and acting with malice, awarding $28.9 million in compensatory damages and an additional $30 million in punitive damages.

The Push for a New Trial

Heil and Romano filed post-trial motions seeking either a new trial or a significant reduction in damages. They argue that the verdict was tainted by flawed expert testimony, speculative damages calculations, and legal errors regarding the admissibility of evidence.

Central to Heil’s argument is that Sonrai’s claim for lost profits rests on projections that two waste management giants—Waste Management and Republic Services—would have signed multimillion-dollar contracts to purchase thousands of Vector units. But as Heil emphasized in its motion, neither company had actually purchased a single unit. "Let that sink in," the company argued. “Sonrai had no evidence of a single consummated sale to these two haulers at all, let alone evidence that these two haulers were inclined to enter into nine-year, fleetwide rollout contracts. This award rests on nothing more than baselessly optimistic speculation.”

Heil also noted that Progressive Waste Solutions, another potential customer cited in Sonrai’s projections, never entered into a contract with the company. Instead, the hauler terminated a trial run with Sonrai due to alleged service failures—an omission Heil claims undermines the reliability of Sonrai’s damages model.

The Damages Expert at the Center of the Dispute

Heil’s post-trial motion heavily criticizes Sonrai’s expert, Suzanne Stuckwisch, whose testimony formed the foundation of the company’s damages claims. Heil contends that her methodology was flawed and lacked a factual basis. The company argued that her projections assumed sales that were never realized and ignored alternative reasons—such as customer dissatisfaction—for why deals never closed.

"By allowing Stuckwisch to testify as an 'expert,' the court opened the door for the jury to hear her speculative calculations, and the jury walked right through," the defense wrote.

Additionally, Heil claims the jury improperly viewed an exhibit during closing arguments that had never been admitted into evidence. This exhibit purportedly related to potential business with Republic Services but, according to Heil, had no relevance to the technology at issue and was presented in violation of evidentiary rules.

Punitive Damages Under Scrutiny

Heil is also seeking to vacate the $30 million punitive damages award, arguing that it lacks sufficient evidentiary support. The company claims that the decision was based largely on "colorful" internal emails exchanged between Romano and other Heil employees prior to his departure from Sonrai. Heil contends that the emails, while perhaps unflattering, do not meet the legal standard for punitive damages, which require a showing of willful and malicious conduct.

Further, Heil points to Illinois law, which generally bars recovery of lost profits for businesses without a proven history of sales for a particular product. The company argues that Sonrai’s claims fail this standard, as the Vector system had no established record of generating the profits claimed at trial.

What’s Next?

While Heil continues to push for a retrial or damages reduction, Sonrai has requested that the court award nearly $9 million in prejudgment interest, citing the jury’s finding of intentional and malicious conduct. Sonrai argues that this additional sum is warranted given the nature of the fiduciary breaches and the harm caused to the company.

As post-trial motions proceed, the case may offer insight into the evidentiary thresholds for expert testimony in complex commercial litigation—particularly when damages hinge on projected, rather than realized, business opportunities.

The Law Firms Involved

Sonrai Systems is represented by:

• Raymond P. Niro Law LLC
• Friedman Suder & Cooke PC
• The Law Offices of Edward T. Joyce & Associates PC
• Joan M. Mannix Ltd.

Heil Co. and Anthony Romano are represented by:

• Lynch Thompson LLP
• Winston & Strawn LLP

The case is titled Sonrai Systems LLC et al. v. Romano et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-03371, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.