Engineered Cooling Services, Inc. v. Star Service, Inc. of Mobile

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 6/8/12 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 2110178 Engineered C o o l i n g S e r v i c e s , Inc. v. S t a r S e r v i c e , Inc. o f Mobile Appeal from Mobile C i r c u i t Court (CV-09-901577) BRYAN, J u d g e . Engineered Cooling S e r v i c e s , I n c . ("ECS"), a p p e a l s a judgment i n f a v o r o f S t a r S e r v i c e , I n c . o f M o b i l e We a f f i r m i n p a r t a n d remand w i t h Factual instructions. Background from ("Star") . 2110178 Star service specializes i n contracting f o r commercial conditioning 2005, Star heating, t o provide ventilation, and a i r - ("HVAC") e q u i p m e n t f o r a f i x e d p r i c e . I n J a n u a r y employed Mark Davis as a e m p l o y e d D a v i s , he h a d h a d no p r e v i o u s business, maintenance salesman. experience When Star i n t h e HVAC a n d S t a r t r a i n e d a n d d e v e l o p e d D a v i s as a s a l e s m a n o f HVAC-maintenance s e r v i c e . When he b e g a n h i s employment w i t h written contract t i t l e d ("the confidentiality other things, information that Star Davis signed agreement") he w o u l d i n w h i c h he a g r e e d , n o t remove Star unless authorized Star's t o do s o of Star. I n December 2008, ECS, one o f S t a r ' s c o m p e t i t o r s , D a v i s a j o b as a salesman a t a base t o l d D a v i s t h a t ECS w a n t e d t o h i r e D a v i s i n o r d e r business. 2 On offered s a l a r y t h a t was a l m o s t h i s b a s e s a l a r y a t S t a r . P e t e D o y l e , ECS's HVAC-maintenance Star customers f o r t h e purpose of o f f e r i n g s e r v i c e s from a c o m p e t i t o r its during f o r a y e a r a f t e r h i s employment w i t h e n d e d , he w o u l d n o t c o n t a c t twice among Star's c o n f i d e n t i a l from i t s premises o r d i s c l o s e i t t o o t h e r s and t h a t , a "Employee C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y A g r e e m e n t " o r a f t e r h i s employment w i t h by Star, January 6, president, to increase 2009, Davis 2110178 a c c e p t e d ECS's job offer. When D a v i s i n f o r m e d Shaun Mayeux, S t a r ' s p r e s i d e n t , t h a t he was l e a v i n g S t a r t o a c c e p t a j o b w i t h ECS, Mayeux r e m i n d e d Davis of h i s o b l i g a t i o n s under the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y agreement. On J a n u a r y 9, 2009, S t a r s e n t a l e t t e r t o D a v i s r e m i n d i n g h i m of his obligations s e n t ECS the under the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y agreement a l e t t e r informing i t of Davis's o b l i g a t i o n s confidentiality agreement. Star subsequently w h i c h was January a violation 16, 2009, demanding s e n t ECS Star's t h a t he a letter confidentiality return attorney sent i n f o r m i n g i t t h a t Davis and w a r n i n g ECS account, agreement. Davis Star's confidential agreement documents to h i s personal e-mail of the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y under discovered t h a t Davis had e - m a i l e d t h r e e o f S t a r ' s c o n f i d e n t i a l from h i s S t a r e - m a i l account a i f i t induced agreement. Davis him to returned two violate of the the On letter documents and had v i o l a t e d the t h a t i t would tortiously interfering with Star's contractual relations Davis and be with confidentiality three confidential documents t o S t a r on a compact d i s k and d e l e t e d t h e t h i r d f r o m his personal e-mail Within a few account. months of 3 Davis's leaving Star, Ray 2110178 R o d r i g u e z , ECS's v i c e p r e s i d e n t , a s k e d D a v i s t o accompany h i m on a v i s i t was t o M o b i l e G a s , one o f S t a r ' s c u s t o m e r s . W h i l e he working a t S t a r , Davis had prepared the p r o p o s a l t h a t had resulted i n Mobile maintain Mobile Gas's Gas's awarding Star HVAC e q u i p m e n t . the contract to Davis testified that R o d r i g u e z p r o b a b l y knew t h a t he h a d p r e p a r e d S t a r ' s p r o p o s a l and that he accompanied Rodriguez t o Mobile Gas because R o d r i g u e z was h i s b o s s a n d h a d a s k e d h i m t o do s o . A t M o b i l e Gas, Rodriguez a n d D a v i s met w i t h D a n i e l C a y l o r , t h e M o b i l e Gas e m p l o y e e w i t h t h e a u t h o r i t y t o d e c i d e w h i c h company s h o u l d be awarded equipment. the contract The e v i d e n c e to maintain was Rodriguez and Davis s o l i c i t e d Gas's HVAC testified equipment i n conflict Mobile Gas's regarding HVAC whether the contract t o maintain Mobile a t the meeting with Caylor. t h a t he a n d R o d r i g u e z d i d n o t s o l i c i t Davis i t ; however, Caylor t e s t i f i e d that they d i d . Caylor f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d that he d e c l i n e d t o switch the contract t o maintain Mobile Gas's HVAC e q u i p m e n t f r o m S t a r t o ECS. Also within a few months o f D a v i s ' s Beckham, an ECS e m p l o y e e , a s k e d meeting with John Harnish, Davis Star, Joel t o accompany h i m t o a an e m p l o y e e 4 leaving of the M i s s i s s i p p i 2110178 National Guard Gulfport, Readiness Mississippi. customers, Center's ("Readiness Readiness and H a r n i s h company s h o u l d Center Center Center") was one o f Star's f o r deciding was r e s p o n s i b l e which be a w a r d e d t h e c o n t r a c t t o m a i n t a i n HVAC e q u i p m e n t . Davis in t e s t i f i e d that Readiness he knew that R e a d i n e s s C e n t e r was a c u s t o m e r o f S t a r , t h a t Beckham w a n t e d Davis t o accompany h i m t o t h e m e e t i n g w i t h Davis had worked solicited f o r Star, the contract and t h a t to maintain he Harnish a n d Beckham h a d Readiness equipment a t t h e meeting w i t h H a r n i s h . because Harnish Center's HVAC t e s t i f i e d that Beckham a n d D a v i s t o l d h i m t h a t t h e y t h o u g h t ECS c o u l d do t h e work that However, Center Star was doing the undisputed better evidence d i d not switch and cheaper indicates the contract than Star. that Readiness to maintain i t s HVAC e q u i p m e n t f r o m S t a r t o ECS. Davis a l s o contacted D a u p h i n Way U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h ("Dauphin Way") a n d H o l i d a y Mobile, who were customers contracts t o maintain ECS terminated I n n Downtown Davis's of Star, ( " H o l i d a y Inn") i n and s o l i c i t e d the t h e i r HVAC e q u i p m e n t on b e h a l f o f ECS. employment i n J a n u a r y 2010. I n 2009, S t a r h a d a c o n t r a c t 5 t o maintain the mechanical 2110178 HVAC equipment of L i t t l e Sisters of the Poor Sisters"), w h i l e ECS h a d t h e c o n t r a c t t o m a i n t a i n equipment of Little 2010, Little renewing knew Star's mechanical offering HVAC contract. Star Mayeux Sister price Paul was that i t would testified Mary, t o l d $12,000 i t f o r $2,000 the c h i l l e r d a t e d J a n u a r y 29, f o r maintaining equipment to maintain By l e t t e r informed administrator, that Sisters Sisters Star's Sisters' Sisters. ("Little that Little h i m t h a t ECS Little and t h a t less. n o t be Sisters' ECS Although was Little subsequently agreed t o continue using Star t o maintain i t s m e c h a n i c a l HVAC e q u i p m e n t t h r o u g h S e p t e m b e r 3 0 , 2010, contracted f o r ECS t o b e g i n e q u i p m e n t on O c t o b e r 1, 2 0 1 0 . derived a profit from maintaining i t i t s m e c h a n i c a l HVAC Mayeux t e s t i f i e d t h a t S t a r h a d i t s contract with Little Sisters t h a t i t l o s t t h a t p r o f i t when i t l o s t i t s c o n t r a c t w i t h and Little S i s t e r s ; h o w e v e r , he t e s t i f i e d t h a t , b e c a u s e i t s c o n t r a c t w i t h Little the Sisters labor was a f i x e d - p r i c e and p a r t s necessary c o n t r a c t and S t a r ' s c o s t f o r to maintain Little Sisters' m e c h a n i c a l HVAC e q u i p m e n t v a r i e d f r o m y e a r t o y e a r , t h e amount of i t s p r o f i t v a r i e d from year t o y e a r . Drew Adams, ECS's c h i e f f i n a n c i a l o f f i c e r , t e s t i f i e d t h a t 6 2110178 Little S i s t e r s a s k e d ECS t o q u o t e a p r i c e f o r m a i n t a i n i n g i t s m e c h a n i c a l HVAC e q u i p m e n t , t h a t ECS q u o t e d a p r i c e , a n d that Little the Sisters awarded ECS the contract to maintain mechanical HVAC e q u i p m e n t . Adams testified instructed Davis t o go t o L i t t l e S i s t e r s and t h a t , knowledge, Davis ECS. Adams n e v e r went t o L i t t l e admitted competing w i t h that ECS a competitor knew t h e c o m p e t i t o r ' s would never toh i s S i s t e r s on b e h a l f o f have p r i c e f o r doing 14, 2009, he an advantage i n f o r a customer's business Procedural On A u g u s t that i f i t t h a t customer's work. History Star sued Davis, ECS, a n d D o y l e , a l l e g i n g t h a t D a v i s had b r e a c h e d t h e c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y agreement and t h a t ECS a n d D o y l e h a d t o r t i o u s l y interfered with Star's c o n t r a c t u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h Davis by i n d u c i n g him t o breach the confidentiality breaching denied agreement. the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y tortiously Answering, agreement, interfering with Davis denied a n d ECS a n d D o y l e Star's contractual r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h D a v i s . A f t e r a number o f c o n t i n u a n c e s , trial ore c o u r t h e l d a bench t r i a l tenus on J u l y court entered a t which i t received 20, 2 0 1 1 . On A u g u s t the f o l l o w i n g judgment: 7 the evidence 22, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l 2110178 "Upon consideration of the testimony and e v i d e n c e s u b m i t t e d by t h e p a r t i e s d u r i n g t h e t r i a l o f t h i s m a t t e r on J u l y 20, 2011, t h e C o u r t e n t e r s j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f P l a i n t i f f [ S t a r ] and a g a i n s t Defendants Mark Davis and Engineered Cooling S e r v i c e s , I n c . i n t h e amount o f $1 i n n o m i n a l damages and $30,000.00 i n p u n i t i v e damages, f o r a t o t a l j u d g m e n t o f $30,001.00. Judgment i s r e n d e r e d i n f a v o r of Pete Doyle. Costs are taxed a g a i n s t Defendants Mark Davis and Engineered Cooling Services, Inc." On S e p t e m b e r 19, 2011, ECS f i l e d a R u l e 5 9 ( e ) , A l a . R. P., m o t i o n t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e t h e j u d g m e n t . The specifically requested t h a t the t r i a l vacate the punitive-damages a w a r d on court alter, the ground Civ. motion amend, o r that i t was e x c e s s i v e . A f t e r h e a r i n g ECS's m o t i o n , t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r d e n y i n g ECS's m o t i o n on S e p t e m b e r 30, s t a t i n g i t s reasons f o r d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t the a w a r d was court. not e x c e s s i v e . ECS then timely 2011, without punitive-damages appealed to this 1 Analysis I . L i a b i l i t y and N o m i n a l Damages ECS f i r s t argues t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n f i n d i n g i n f a v o r of S t a r w i t h r e s p e c t t o the i s s u e of l i a b i l i t y awarding 1 S t a r n o m i n a l damages b e c a u s e , D a v i s d i d not f i l e ECS a n o t i c e of appeal. 8 says, Star and in failed 2110178 to prove (1) t h a t ECS h a d i n t e r f e r e d w i t h S t a r ' s c o n t r a c t u a l relationship with Davis a n d (2) t h a t r e s u l t . Because the t r i a l fact, this necessary Fin. court must t o support C o r p . v. AmSouth S t a r was damaged c o u r t made no s p e c i f i c assume that i t made Bank, N.A., are t h e r e f o r e , we must presume t h a t t h o s e correct unless they findings Commercial 608 So. 2d 375, 378 1 9 9 2 ) . The o r e t e n u s r u l e a p p l i e s t o t h o s e and, findings of those i t s judgment. T r a n s a m e r i c a as a (Ala. implicit findings, implicit findings a r e p l a i n l y and p a l p a b l y wrong. I d . " I n ore tenus proceedings, the t r i a l court i s the s o l e judge o f t h e f a c t s and o f t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s , and t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d accept o n l y t h a t t e s t i m o n y i t c o n s i d e r s t o be w o r t h y o f b e l i e f . O s t r a n d e r v. O s t r a n d e r , 517 So. 2d 3 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1987). F u r t h e r , i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e w e i g h t t o be a c c o r d e d t o t h e t e s t i m o n y o f any w i t n e s s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t may c o n s i d e r t h e demeanor o f t h e w i t n e s s a n d the witness's apparent candor or evasiveness. O s t r a n d e r , s u p r a . ... I t i s n o t t h e p r o v i n c e o f t h i s court to override the t r i a l court's observations. Brown[ v . Brown, 586 So. 2d 919 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1991)]." Woods v . Woods, 653 So. 2d 312, 314 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 4 ) . A de novo standard conclusions facts. of review applies to the t r i a l o f law and i t s a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e law t o t h e See R e t a i l D e v e l o p e r s o f A l a b a m a , LLC v. E a s t Golf Club, court's I n c . , 985 So. 2d 924, 929 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) . 9 Gadsden 2110178 The essential elements of the tort of intentional i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h c o n t r a c t u a l o r b u s i n e s s r e l a t i o n s a r e : "(1) the existence which o f a p r o t e c t i b l e b u s i n e s s r e l a t i o n s h i p ; (2) o f the defendant stranger; (4) with knew; (3) t o w h i c h which the t h e d e f e n d a n t was defendant a intentionally i n t e r f e r e d ; and (5) damage." W h i t e Sands G r o u p , L.L.C. v. PRS II, L L C , 32 So. 3d 5, 14 ( A l a . 2009). "The damages recoverable for interference with a contractual include: intentional relationship "'"(1) the p e c u n i a r y l o s s of the b e n e f i t s o f t h e ... r e l a t i o n ; (2) consequential losses f o r which the i n t e r f e r e n c e i s a l e g a l c a u s e ; ... (3) e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s o r a c t u a l harm t o r e p u t a t i o n i f either i s r e a s o n a b l y t o be e x p e c t e d t o r e s u l t f r o m t h e i n t e r f e r e n c e , " KW P l a s t i c s v. U n i t e d S t a t e s Can Co., 131 F. Supp. 2d 1265, 1268 (M.D. A l a . 2001); and (4) punitive damages.' " W h i t e Sands G r o u p , L.L.C. v. PRS I I , L L C , 32 So. 3d 5, 17 ( A l a . 2 0 0 9 ) . " Roberson C i v . App. v. C.P. A l l e n C o n s t r . Co., 50 So. 3d 471, 477 ( A l a . 2010). I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , ECS does n o t c h a l l e n g e of the first intentional three essential interference with 10 elements of contractual the existence the tort or business of 2110178 r e l a t i o n s . Consequently, i t has waived the i s s u e whether those three So. e s s e n t i a l elements e x i s t e d . See B o s h e l l 2 d 89, 92 ( A l a . 1982) ("When an a p p e l l a n t v. K e i t h , 418 fails t o argue an i s s u e i n i t s b r i e f , t h a t i s s u e i s w a i v e d . " ) . T h e r e f o r e , i n reviewing t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t , we must presume (1) t h a t Star had a p r o t e c t i b l e business r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h Davis, t h a t ECS knew o f i t , a n d (3) t h a t ECS was a s t r a n g e r With respect interfered the trial with to the issue Star's whether contractual court had before ECS (2) to i t . intentionally relationship with Davis, i t undisputed evidence that would s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g t h a t , w i t h i n a few months a f t e r D a v i s Star, left R o d r i g u e z a s k e d D a v i s t o accompany h i m t o t h e m e e t i n g with Caylor evidence a t M o b i l e Gas. The t r i a l that would support court a l s o had before a finding that, when he D a v i s t o accompany h i m t o t h e m e e t i n g w i t h C a y l o r , knew t h a t D a v i s h a d p r e p a r e d S t a r ' s p r o p o s a l i t asked Rodriguez that had r e s u l t e d i n M o b i l e Gas's a w a r d i n g S t a r t h e c o n t r a c t t o m a i n t a i n Mobile Gas's HVAC e q u i p m e n t . A l t h o u g h that he a n d to maintain Mobile Rodriguez Gas's d i d not s o l i c i t HVAC equipment Davis testified the contract a t the meeting t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y d i d . The t r i a l 11 with Caylor, Caylor c o u r t , as t h e j u d g e o f t h e 2110178 facts and t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of the witnesses, could a c c e p t e d C a y l o r ' s t e s t i m o n y t h a t Rodriguez and Davis have solicited t h e c o n t r a c t t o m a i n t a i n M o b i l e Gas's HVAC e q u i p m e n t a t t h a t meeting and r e j e c t e d soliciting the Davis's contract conflicting to maintain testimony. Mobile Davis's Gas's HVAC e q u i p m e n t on b e h a l f o f ECS w i t h i n one y e a r o f h i s l e a v i n g S t a r constituted Thus, a violation the evidence of the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y before f i n d i n g t h a t ECS, t h r o u g h the t r i a l court would i t s agent Rodriguez, agreement. support a intentionally i n t e r f e r e d w i t h S t a r ' s c o n t r a c t u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h Davis by inducing Davis t o breach the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y meeting w i t h C a y l o r and s o l i c i t i n g agreement by the contract to maintain M o b i l e Gas's HVAC e q u i p m e n t on b e h a l f o f ECS. Moreover, evidence the t r i a l establishing that, court had before within i t undisputed a few months a f t e r Davis l e f t S t a r , Beckham, who was an a g e n t o f ECS, a s k e d D a v i s t o go to the meeting solicited equipment with Harnish and t h a t the contract to maintain on solicitation behalf of ECS at Beckham Readiness that and Center's Davis HVAC meeting. Davis's of the c o n t r a c t t o maintain Readiness Center's HVAC e q u i p m e n t on b e h a l f o f ECS w i t h i n one y e a r o f h i s l e a v i n g 12 2110178 S t a r c o n s t i t u t e d a v i o l a t i o n o f t h e c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y agreement. Thus, the t r i a l support a court finding had evidence that ECS, before through i t that i t s agent i n t e n t i o n a l l y interfered with Star's contractual with Davis by i n d u c i n g Davis t o breach agreement by m e e t i n g w i t h H a r n i s h to maintain Readiness Center's would Beckham, relationship the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y and s o l i c i t i n g t h e c o n t r a c t HVAC e q u i p m e n t on b e h a l f of ECS. The switching e v i d e n c e was i n c o n f l i c t the contract regarding t o maintain Little Sisters' i t s mechanical e q u i p m e n t f r o m S t a r t o ECS. However, t h e t r i a l c o u r t , as t h e judge o f t h e f a c t s and t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e w i t n e s s e s , have a c c e p t e d Mayeux's t e s t i m o n y that Sister t o l d h i m t h a t ECS knew t h a t S t a r was c h a r g i n g HVAC Paul could Mary had Little Sisters $12,000 f o r m a i n t a i n i n g i t s m e c h a n i c a l HVAC e q u i p m e n t a n d t h a t ECS was o f f e r i n g court ECS t o do t h a t work f o r $2,000 l e s s . c o u l d have i n f e r r e d knew t h a t Star's price from t h e evidence f o r maintaining The t r i a l indicating Little that Sisters' m e c h a n i c a l HVAC e q u i p m e n t was $12,000 a n d t h a t ECS h a d i n d u c e d Davis t o breach the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y agreement by soliciting M o b i l e Gas a n d R e a d i n e s s C e n t e r w i t h i n one y e a r o f h i s l e a v i n g 13 2110178 Star that ECS confidentiality maintaining Thus, had also agreement induced by Davis disclosing breach Star's the price for L i t t l e S i s t e r s ' m e c h a n i c a l HVAC e q u i p m e n t t o ECS. the t r i a l court had evidence before s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g t h a t ECS i n t e n t i o n a l l y contractual Davis to r e l a t i o n s h i p between t o breach Star the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y Star's price f o r maintaining i t that would i n t e r f e r e d with the and Davis by inducing agreement by d i s c l o s i n g Little S i s t e r s ' m e c h a n i c a l HVAC could have e q u i p m e n t t o ECS. The trial court also i n f e r r e d from t h e e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t D a v i s h a d s o l i c i t e d D a u p h i n Way a n d Holiday Star I n n on b e h a l f and that ECS confidentiality Readiness leaving Holiday on b e h a l f that confidentiality had agreement Center Star o f ECS w i t h i n one y e a r o f h i s l e a v i n g induced by I n n on b e h a l f S t a r . Thus, t h e t r i a l to soliciting by contractual the and ofh i s t o breach the Dauphin Way and o f ECS w i t h i n one y e a r o f h i s l e a v i n g court had before i t evidence t h a t would s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g t h a t ECS h a d i n t e n t i o n a l l y the Gas one y e a r induced Davis soliciting breach Mobile o f ECS w i t h i n ECS h a d a l s o agreement Davis relationship 14 between Star interfered with and Davis by 2110178 inducing Davis t o breach the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y s o l i c i t i n g D a u p h i n Way a n d H o l i d a y court erred by I n n w i t h i n one y e a r o f h i s l e a v i n g S t a r . A c c o r d i n g l y , we f i n d no m e r i t that the t r i a l agreement i n ECS's argument i n f i n d i n g i n favor of Star with r e s p e c t t o t h e i s s u e o f l i a b i l i t y and i n awarding S t a r nominal damages on t h e g r o u n d t h a t S t a r f a i l e d t o p r o v e t h a t ECS h a d interfered with Star's contractual relationship with Davis. W i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r S t a r s u f f e r e d damage as a result of contractual before ECS's relationship with i t undisputed profits intentional as a of As inferred from t h e e v i d e n c e was explained charging above, $12,000 to maintain m e c h a n i c a l HVAC e q u i p m e n t b y i n d u c i n g information i n violation court with court i t that ECS l e a r n e d that Little was a give competing f o r t h a t customer's business. have found that ECS u s e d ECS an agreement. competitor advantage The t r i a l i t s knowledge 15 Sisters' Davis t o d i s c l o s e that of the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y would Little have t h a t ECS's k n o w l e d g e o f t h e p r i c e a customer had could Adams a d m i t t e d charging Star's S t a r had l o s t i t s contract the t r i a l before with the t r i a l i n d i c a t i n g that losing Sisters. Star Davis, evidence result interference court of Star's in could price to 2110178 secure the contract HVAC e q u i p m e n t was charging. profit consequence Little Sisters' mechanical by o f f e r i n g t o do i t f o r $2,000 l e s s t h a n S t a r Thus, t h e t r i a l evidence before the to maintain i t t h a t S t a r h a d b e e n damaged by t h e l o s s from of c o u r t c o u l d have f o u n d f r o m t h e i t s contract ECS's with intentional Little Sisters interference with as of a Star's c o n t r a c t u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h Davis. Although the evidence d i d not i n d i c a t e plaintiff or she the s p e c i f i c amount o f p r o f i t i s e n t i t l e d t o an award proves intentional that he or interference she lost, a o f n o m i n a l damages when he was with S t a r had the damaged by a plaintiff's defendant's contractual r e l a t i o n s b u t c a n n o t p r o v e t h e s p e c i f i c amount o f h i s o r h e r damage. See R o b e r s o n v. C.P. 477-78. A c c o r d i n g l y , we A l l e n Constr. f i n d no m e r i t Co., 50 So. 3d a t i n ECS's argument the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n f i n d i n g i n f a v o r of S t a r w i t h that respect t o t h e i s s u e o f l i a b i l i t y and i n a w a r d i n g S t a r n o m i n a l damages on the ECS's ground that intentional relationship with Because we Star failed interference to prove with i t was Star's damaged by contractual Davis. f i n d no m e r i t i n ECS's a r g u m e n t s challenging the t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g i n f a v o r of S t a r w i t h r e s p e c t t o the 16 2110178 issue of l i a b i l i t y and i t s a w a r d i n g S t a r n o m i n a l damages, we a f f i r m t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r as i t f o u n d i n f a v o r of Star with respect to the issue of l i a b i l i t y and awarded S t a r n o m i n a l damages. II. ECS P u n i t i v e Damages also challenges the t r i a l damages on s e v e r a l g r o u n d s . One trial court erred determining in in failing award of those grounds to state of p u n i t i v e i s that i t s reasons t h a t t h e p u n i t i v e - d a m a g e s award was n o t i t s order d e n y i n g ECS's p o s t j u d g m e n t conclude t h a t the t r i a l for court's determining that court the should motion. the for excessive Because we have s t a t e d i t s r e a s o n s punitive-damages award was excessive, s e e , e.g., 1374, ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) , we remand t h e c a u s e w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s for 1379 the t r i a l determining We Hammond v. C i t y o f Gadsden , 493 c o u r t t o e n t e r an o r d e r So. not 2d s t a t i n g i t s reasons f o r t h a t t h e p u n i t i v e - d a m a g e s award was n o t e x c e s s i v e . f u r t h e r i n s t r u c t t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o make a r e t u r n t o remand within 42 days. AFFIRMED IN PART AND Thompson, concur. P.J., and REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Pittman, 17 Thomas, and Moore, J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.