Express One International, Inc. v. Steinbeck
2001 Tex. App. LEXIS 5708, 2001 WL 946812, 53 S.W.3d 895 (2001)
Rule of Law:
In Texas, purely economic damages are generally not recoverable in simple negligence actions, and claims for trade name dilution, invasion of privacy by misappropriation, or conversion of intangible property each require specific elements that were not met by a former employee's critical online post using a similar screen name.
Facts:
- Express One International, Inc. (Express One) employs pilots as part of its airline freight carrier and charter passenger business.
- In 1998, Express One pilots participated in a labor representation election to decide whether they would join a trade union, an election overseen by the National Mediation Board (NMB).
- During the election campaign, John T. Steinbeck, a former Express One pilot, posted a message on an internet message board using the screen name “Expre-sONE.”
- The message contained negative comments about union supporters, stating: “For you vocal union supporters, I’d be watching your backs. We know who most of you are who are posting your anti-company propaganda. We’re not stupid.”
- Express One monitored the message board and, upon discovering the message, immediately informed both its pilots and the NMB that it was not responsible for the posting.
- The Express One pilots voted to join the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
- After investigating the possible effect of the e-mail posting on the election, the NMB certified the election results in favor of the union.
- Express One later discovered that Steinbeck was the author of the anti-union message.
Procedural Posture:
- Express One protested the NMB's certification of election results and filed a separate lawsuit against the NMB and the Teamsters union.
- Express One filed the present lawsuit against John T. Steinbeck, initially alleging claims for trade name dilution, invasion of privacy, defamation, and negligence.
- Express One later dropped its defamation claim and added a claim for conversion.
- Steinbeck responded to Express One's suit with counterclaims, including invasion of privacy and abuse of process.
- Steinbeck filed a motion for summary judgment challenging each of Express One’s claims on both traditional and no-evidence grounds in the trial court (District Court).
- The trial court granted Steinbeck’s motion for summary judgment, ordering that Express One take nothing by its claims.
- Steinbeck subsequently voluntarily dismissed his counterclaims, making the summary judgment final.
- Express One appealed the trial court's judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment against Express One International, Inc. on its claims for negligence, trade name dilution, invasion of privacy by misappropriation, and conversion, where Express One alleged only economic damages for negligence, failed to show trademark use for dilution or commercial benefit for misappropriation, and alleged conversion of intangible property not merged into a document?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Morris
No, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment against Express One International, Inc. because Express One failed to establish legally recognized claims for negligence, trade name dilution, invasion of privacy by misappropriation, or conversion based on the former employee's internet posting. The Court reasoned that, regarding negligence, Express One only alleged damages in the form of financial expenditures (costs related to identification of Steinbeck, NMB proceedings, and filing lawsuits), which are considered solely economic harm and generally not recoverable in simple negligence actions under Texas law unless there is also personal injury or property damage. For trade name dilution, Express One provided no evidence that Steinbeck used “Expre-sONE” as a trade name in a way that blurred or tarnished Express One's mark, as dilution requires the defendant's use of the plaintiff's mark as their own trade name in connection with goods or services, not merely for criticism or commentary. Even assuming a corporation could sue for invasion of privacy by misappropriation, Express One presented no evidence that Steinbeck appropriated its name for commercial standing, reputation, or other values associated with the name, or intended to receive any benefit, rather than simply intending to impugn the company's reputation. Finally, the Court affirmed that Texas law does not recognize a cause of action for conversion of intangible property, such as a trade name, unless the underlying intangible right has been merged into a tangible document that was converted, which was not the case here.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the limits of several tort claims under Texas law, particularly when applied to online conduct. It reinforces the 'economic loss rule' in negligence, preventing recovery for purely financial losses without accompanying physical injury or property damage. For intellectual property, it delineates that claims like trade name dilution require actual 'trademark use' by the defendant, differentiating it from mere criticism or disparagement. The ruling also maintains the narrow scope of conversion claims in Texas, generally precluding them for intangible assets unless embodied in a tangible document, and illustrates judicial reluctance to extend personal privacy rights, such as misappropriation, to corporate entities. This precedent emphasizes the high bar for proving these specific torts, especially in novel contexts like internet communications.
