CRST Expedited, Inc. v. Swift Transportation Co., No. 20-1097 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
CRST filed suit alleging that Swift wrongfully recruited and hired long-haul truck drivers who were "under contract" with CRST. Ruling on post-verdict motions, the district court upheld the intentional interference with contracts award, vacated the unjust enrichment award because it was predicated on a theory of damages rejected in the court's summary judgment rulings, and remitted the punitive damages to $3 million.
The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's post-verdict order upholding the intentional interference verdict because it relied upon CRST's theory of liability that the court rejected in CRST Expedited, Inc. v. TransAm Trucking, Inc., 960 F.3d 499 (8th Cir. 2020). The court explained that the proper focus is on intentionally and improperly causing the employee to violate his or her covenant not to compete, not merely on the hiring of a competitor's at-will employee to further the actor's legitimate competitive interests. After careful review of the record, the court concluded that it must reverse with instructions to dismiss because, for multiple reasons, CRST failed to prove its interference with contract claim and therefore its claim for unjust enrichment as well. The court affirmed the amended judgment in favor of Swift on CRST's unjust enrichment claim.
Court Description: [Loken, Author, with Wollman and Stras, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Contracts. In this action for intentional interference with existing contracts, the district court's post-verdict order upholding the award of damages to CRST was premised on a theory of liability this court recently rejected in CRST Expedited, Inc. v. TransAm Trucking, Inc., 960 F.3d 499 (8th Cir. 2020), and the judgment must be reversed; after careful review of the record, the court concludes the case must be reversed with instruction to dismiss because, for multiple reasons, CRST failed to prove its interference-with-contract claim and, therefore, its claim for unjust enrichment as well.
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.