 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
American Technical Resources8/28/2001
Justice Richter
In this tortious interference case, American Technical Resources ("ATR") appeals the trial court's judgment in favor of Network Staffing Services, Inc. ("NSSI"). NSSI cross appeals. In five issues, ATR complains (1) NSSI's tortious interference claim was supported by no evidence or insufficient evidence, (2) rejection of ATR's affirmative defense of justification was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence, (3) the trial court miscalculated prejudgment interest, (4) the trial court erroneously denied ATR's summary judgment seeking liquidated damages, and (5) the trial court's judgment granting NSSI declaratory relief was supported by insufficient evidence. NSSI counters that the trial court correctly granted judgment on their tortious interference claim, denied ATR's motion for summary judgment, calculated prejudgment interest, and rejected ATR's justification defense. However, NSSI cross-appeals contending the trial court erred in rejecting its breach of contract claim and awarding insufficient damages on its tortious interference claim. We affirm in part, and reverse and remand in part.
Factual and Procedural Background
ATR and NSSI are companies providing temporary technical personnel to third party clients. In June 1993, ATR entered into a contract with NSSI's predecessor company, Techniki Informatica, Inc. ("Techniki"). Techniki contracted with ATR to become a subcontractor of MCI. Techniki provided technical personnel to MCI and submitted the bill to ATR. As a MCI prime vendor, ATR would then bill MCI. After receiving payment from MCI, ATR would then pay Techniki, subtracting an agreed upon billing fee.
In May 1996, Techniki and NSSI merged, and continued doing business as NSSI. After the merger, questions arose as to the billing practices between ATR and NSSI. NSSI's president, Mr. Logal ("Logal"), met with ATR representatives and sent letters regarding what he considered problems with the contract between the two companies. On October 21, 1996, Logal sent ATR a letter stating, "we have determined that the current relationship is no longer serving the best interests of our company. Therefore, please be advised that we are fully exploring our options, and intend to make a change in our subcontractor status in 30 days of the date of this letter. . . . we would like to include you in our review process. If you have interest, please send written confirmation by November 21, 1996." On November 15, 1996, ATR responded to NSSI's letter stating, "ATR is obviously disappointed that you have chosen to terminate your relationship with them. Nonetheless, Norell [ATR's parent company] fully expects your company to abide by the terms to which you have agreed. Therefore, we are in the process of calculating liquidated damages and will submit an invoice to you shortly."
In January and February 1997, NSSI ceased billing MCI through ATR and sought to become a MCI primary vendor. Both NSSI and ATR attempted to bill MCI for employees provided by NSSI. After receiving bills from both companies, MCI instructed the two companies to settle their differences without involving MCI. Until trial in the matter, ATR and NSSI abided by a "stand still" agreement, leaving in place the arrangement by which ATR would act as the intermediary between NSSI and MCI.
NSSI filed suit against ATR, seeking recovery for breach of contract, tortious interference with a contract, and declaratory relief. ATR answered and asserted a counterclaim for breach of contract. NSSI then filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to ATR's counterclaim, which the trial court granted. NSSI's remaining claims were heard at a bench trial on Janu
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|