ILNews

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.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT