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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Joseph Buser, Montgomery County Chief Prosecutor, has been involved in both representing the State of Indiana as Prosecutor while filing as Representing Attorney on behalf of himself and the State of Indiana in Civil Proceedings for seized cash and merchandise using a Verified Complaint For Forfeiture of Motor Vehicle, Us Currency And Reimbursement Of Costs, as is evident in Montgomery County Circuit Court Case Number 54C01-1401-MI-000018, CCS below, seen before Judge Harry Siamas, and filed on 01/13/2014. Sheriff Mark Castille is also named. All three defendants named by summons have prior convictions under Mr. Buser, which as the Indiana Supreme Court, in the opinion of The Matter of Mark R. McKinney, No. 18S00-0905-DI-220, stated that McKinney created a conflict of interest by simultaneously prosecuting drug offender cases while pocketing assets seized from defendants in those cases. All moneys that come from forfeitures MUST go to the COMMON SCHOOL FUND.

  2. I was incarcerated at that time for driving while suspended I have no felonies...i was placed on P block I remember several girls and myself asking about voting that day..and wasn't given a answer or means of voting..we were told after the election who won that was it.

  3. The number one way to reduce suffering would be to ban the breeding of fighting dogs. Fighting dogs maim and kill victim dogs Fighting dogs are the most essential piece of dog fighting Dog fighting will continue as long as fighting dogs are struggling to reach each other and maul another fih.longaphernalia

  4. Oh, and you fail to mention that you deprived the father of far FAR more time than he ever did you, even requiring officers to escort the children back into his care. Please, can you see that you had a huge part in "starting the war?" Patricia, i can't understand how painfully heartbreak ithis ordeal must have been for you. I read the appellate case and was surprised to see both sides of the story because your actions were harmful to your child; more so than the fathers. The evidence wasn't re weighed. It was properly reviewed for abuse of discretion as the trial court didn't consider whether a change of circumstance occurred or follow and define the statutes that led to their decision. Allowing a child to call a boyfriend "daddy" and the father by his first name is unacceptable. The first time custody was reversed to father was for very good reason. Self reflection in how you ultimately lost primary custody is the only way you will be able heal and move forward. Forgiveness of yourself comes after recognition and I truly hope you can get past the hurt and pain to allow your child the stability and care you recognized yourself that the father provides.

  5. Patricia, i can't understand how painfully heartbreak ithis ordeal must have been for you. I read the appellate case and was surprised to see both sides of the story because your actions were harmful to your child; more so than the fathers. The evidence wasn't re weighed. It was properly reviewed for abuse of discretion as the trial court didn't consider whether a change of circumstance occurred or follow and define the statutes that led to their decision. Allowing a child to call a boyfriend "daddy" and the father by his first name is unacceptable. The first time custody was reversed to father was for very good reason. Self reflection in how you ultimately lost primary custody is the only way you will be able heal and move forward. Forgiveness of yourself comes after recognition and I truly hope you can get past the hurt and pain to allow your child the stability and care you recognized yourself that the father provides.

ADVERTISEMENT