WARMBIER v. DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA Cite as 356 F.Supp.3d 30 (D.D.C. 2018) jurisdictional requirements of section 1605A are met,’’ Owens v. Republic of Sudan, 826 F.Supp.2d 128, 153 (D.D.C. 2011) (citing Kilburn, 699 F.Supp.2d at 155); see also Hekmati, 278 F.Supp.3d at 163 (‘‘In concluding that there is jurisdiction over Hekmati’s claims TTT the Court has already determined all of the essential elements for imposing liability under 1605A(c) have been establishedTTTT’’); Kaplan v. Cent. Bank of Islamic Republic of Iran, 55 F.Supp.3d 189, 198 (D.D.C. 2014) (‘‘[P]laintiffs’ claims against North Korea meet [the FSIA terrorism exception’s] requirements for purposes of subject-matter jurisdiction and liability.’’). Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in Part III.A, supra, the plaintiffs have established North Korea’s liability to them under 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c), leaving only the amount of damages allowable to the plaintiffs to resolve. D. Damages Otto’s estate seeks to recover economic, pain and suffering, and punitive damages, and Fred and Cindy Warmbier seek solatium and punitive damages. See Pls.’ Mot at 2–3. The damages to which each plaintiff is entitled are described below. 1. Legal Standard for Damages Under Section 1605A(c) [22, 23] Congress, in creating a private right of action in Section 1605A(c) for victims of state-sponsored terrorism, also provided, in the same subsection, that such foreign states are liable for money damages, including ‘‘economic damages, solatium, pain and suffering, and punitive damages.’’ 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c). ‘‘Upon obtaining a default judgment, successful plaintiffs may recover damages by proving ‘that the projected consequences are reasonably certain (i.e., more likely than not) to occur, and must prove the amount of damages by a reasonable estimate.’ ’’ 55 Fraenkel, 892 F.3d at 353 (quoting Hill v. Republic of Iraq, 328 F.3d 680, 684 (D.C. Cir. 2003) ); see also Kim v. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, 87 F.Supp.3d 286, 289 (D.D.C. 2015); Roth, 78 F.Supp.3d at 402; Salazar v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 370 F.Supp.2d 105, 115–16 (D.D.C. 2005). In determining the ‘‘reasonable estimate,’’ courts may look to expert testimony and prior awards for comparable injury. Reed v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 845 F.Supp.2d 204, 214 (D.D.C. 2012); Acosta v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 574 F.Supp.2d 15, 29 (D.D.C. 2008). For the reasons detailed supra, in Part III.A, the plaintiffs have satisfactorily shown that North Korea’s torture, hostage taking and extrajudicial killing of Otto was likely, and reasonably certain, to result in injury and death to Otto and to devastate his family. 2. Economic Losses and Medical Expenses (Otto’s Estate) [24, 25] Otto’s estate seeks to recover for Otto’s ‘‘lost earning capacity, or the likely wages that he would have earned had his life not been cut short.’’ Pl.’s Mot. at 40; see also Compl. at 21. ‘‘Unlike damages for pain and suffering, lost earnings are not hard to quantify, and the Court will not excuse [a plaintiff’s] failure to support the claim for lost earnings with competent evidence.’’ Moradi, 77 F.Supp.3d at 71. A plaintiff, however, may prove lost earnings based on reasoned analysis of an expert economist, see Thuneibat v. Syrian Arab Republic, 167 F.Supp.3d 22, 48 (D.D.C. 2016), as the plaintiffs have done here. [26] In support of Otto’s lost wages, the plaintiffs submitted evidence in the form of a report from Professor James V. Koch, a Board of Visitors Professor of Economics Emeritus and President Emeritus at Old Dominion University, with a