In S.C. Anderson, Inc. v. Bank of America (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 529, the plaintiff contractor was engaged to construct tenant improvements on two buildings, while the defendant bank was the lender on the project. The plaintiff claimed that, due to the defendant's fraud, it was not timely paid for its work on the project, resulting in a diminishment of its working capital. This in turn led to a reduction in its bonding capacity, from an aggregate exposure or $ 10,000,000 to an aggregate limit of $ 5,000,000. The plaintiff bid on a public construction project for which it was the low bidder. All bids were rejected, and the project was then rebid. The plaintiff prepared its rebid in the amount of $ 2,980,000, including a 5 percent profit margin of $ 140,588. However, the surety refused to provide a bid bond because the project would cause the plaintiff to exceed its then existing $ 5,000,000 aggregate bonding capacity. Consequently, the plaintiff did not submit its bid on, and was not awarded, the construction contract. The successful low bid was $ 3,027,036. "Based on these facts, the plaintiff contended that, but for its inability to obtain a bid bond, it would have been the successful low bidder for the . . . project and would have realized a profit of $ 140,588 had it completed the work." ( S.C. Anderson, Inc. v. Bank of America, supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at p. 534.) The court acknowledged that the Supreme Court in Warner "has recognized this ground of recovery in construction cases." (Ibid.) The defendant bank moved for nonsuit on the ground that the plaintiff failed to present facts sufficient to support an award of lost profits. "Specifically, the Bank argued that because plaintiff had not presented evidence of its past profitability, it failed to establish it would have earned the 5 percent profit margin projected in the rebid." ( S.C. Anderson, Inc. v. Bank of America, supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at p. 534.) The appellate court stated the rule for proof of lost profits thus: "Lost anticipated profits cannot be recovered if it is uncertain whether any profit would have been derived at all from the proposed undertaking. But lost prospective net profits may be recovered if the evidence shows, with reasonable certainty, both their occurrence and extent. ( Sanchez-Corea v. Bank of America (1985) 38 Cal.3d 892, 907, 215 Cal. Rptr. 679, 701 P.2d 826.) It is enough to demonstrate a reasonable probability that profits would have been earned except for the defendant's conduct. ( Kerner v. Hughes Tool Co. (1976) 56 Cal. App. 3d 924; accord, Maggio, Inc. v. United Farm Workers (1991) 227 Cal. App. 3d 847.) The plaintiff has the burden to produce the best evidence available in the circumstances to attempt to establish a claim for loss of profits. (Warner Constr. Corp. v. City of Los Angeles (1970) 2 Cal.3d 285 at p. 302; Stott v. Johnston (1951) 36 Cal.2d 864.)" ( S.C. Anderson, Inc. v. Bank of America, supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at p. 535.) The appellate court ruled, however, that there was "no evidence which would have enabled the jury to conclude it was reasonably probable the company would in fact have earned a profit of $ 140,588 had it been awarded the . . . project." ( S.C. Anderson, Inc. v. Bank of America, supra, 24 Cal.App.4th at pp. 535-536.) The plaintiff failed to produce evidence "relating to the accuracy of its bid, its ability to competently and efficiently perform the . . . project, or its likely net profit." ( Id. at p. 537.) Rather, its proof of lost profits consisted of evidence that it "generally used a 5 to 8 percent profit and overhead figure in its bids." ( Id. at p. 534.) The appellate court ruled that this proof was not sufficient. It did not rule, as the District would have us believe, that lost profits from a loss of bonding capacity are inherently speculative and thus not recoverable.