Judges: disparagement provision not violated

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals twice declined to certify questions to the Indiana Supreme Court a litigant raised in his appeal of a suit involving alleged violations of a non-disparagement clause in a settlement agreement.

David N. Rain sued Rolls-Royce Corp. in federal court claiming the company breached a non-disparagement agreement in a settlement agreement Rolls-Royce and Rain’s company Paramount International Inc. entered into following an earlier lawsuit. Paramount and Rolls-Royce are direct competitors regarding helicopter engines.

They have a contentious history and after a 2005 lawsuit involving intellectual property disputes, the two companies entered into a settlement agreement that contained a provision stating “None of the Parties will disparage the other.” A breach of this will entitle the prevailing party to attorney’s fees and damages.

Two incidents in 2007 led to Rain filing the suit alleging a violation of the settlement agreement. Rolls-Royce filed a complaint in federal court in Texas alleging Rain and Paramount conspired with other defendants to use Rolls-Royce's proprietary information. In that suit, the company referred to Rain and Paramount as “Mr. Doe” and “Principal Corporation.” Also that year, Rain attended an expo as a guest of an authorized maintenance center. A Rolls-Royce vice president asked Rain to leave because he was concerned Rain would bait a Rolls-Royce employee into saying something disparaging. Rain left, which upset the organization that had paid for his ticket to attend.

The District Court granted partial summary judgment for Rolls-Royce on Rain’s breach of contract claim regarding the Texas lawsuit and after a bench trial, ruled in favor of Rolls-Royce on his breach of contract claim regarding the expo incident.

In David N. Rain and Paramount International Inc. v. Rolls-Royce Corp., No. 10-1290, the 7th Circuit found the requirements for applying Indiana’s absolute privilege were satisfied because the allegations made in the Texas court were made in the course of a judicial proceeding to which they were relevant. Rain argued the immunity doesn’t extend beyond defamation and other tort claims to encompass breach of contract claims – an issue Indiana state courts haven’t addressed. Looking to other jurisdictions, the 7th Circuit concluded that the Indiana Supreme Court would conclude that the absolute litigation privilege is applicable to breach of contract actions, at least where immunity from liability is consistent with the purpose of the privilege, wrote Judge Joel Flaum.

The judges also affirmed the judgment in favor of Rolls-Royce on the claim involving the expo event. They concluded, after using dictionary definitions of the term “disparage,” that the word in the settlement agreement properly is limited to actions dishonoring, discrediting, denigrating, or belittling the parties’ economic, business, or professional interests. Rain had argued the District Court erred by not including the sort of personal embarrassment he suffered at the expo event.

He also wanted the 7th Circuit to certify two questions to the Indiana Supreme Court: whether Indiana’s absolute litigation privilege applies to the breach of contract claims, and what the proper definition of disparagement is under the circumstances of the case. The appellate judges declined to certify either question, finding certification to be inappropriate regarding the disparagement definition and unnecessary for his first suggested question.

“If and when it arises again, the state courts will be free to reach their own conclusion, of course, and can tell us if our prediction of Indiana law was correct. Without seeing an obstacle to future state court resolution of the issue, we see no need to require the parties to go through another round of briefing and argument in this litigation,” wrote Judge Flaum.



Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.