James Roberson and Penhall Company, Inc. v. C.P. Allen Construction Company, Inc., d/b/a ABC Cutting Contractors

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 05/07/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 2080537 James Roberson and P e n h a l l Company, Inc. v. C.P. A l l e n C o n s t r u c t i o n Company, Inc., d/b/a ABC C u t t i n g C o n t r a c t o r s Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t (CV-05-1126) Court On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g MOORE, Judge. This and court's o p i n i o n o f J a n u a r y 29, 2 0 1 0 , i s w i t h d r a w n , the following i s s u b s t i t u t e d therefor. 2080537 James R o b e r s o n and P e n h a l l Company, I n c . , a p p e a l f r o m a j u d g m e n t a w a r d i n g C.P. A l l e n C o n s t r u c t i o n Company, I n c . , d/b/a ABC Cutting Contractors ("ABC"), $50,000 -- $25,000 in " n o m i n a l " damages b a s e d on R o b e r s o n ' s b r e a c h o f a noncompete agreement and $25,000 interference with that ABC, 14, and dispatcher and an damages for Penhall's tortious agreement. a c o n c r e t e - c u t t i n g company, h i r e d R o b e r s o n on A u g u s t 1995, signed in soon thereafter salesman. employment On began September contract that training 11, contained 1995, the him as a Roberson following clause: " I a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t by v i r t u e o f my employment I will acquire information concerning [ABC's] o p e r a t i o n s , s u p p l i e r s , and c u s t o m e r s , and t h a t s u c h i n f o r m a t i o n c o n s t i t u t e s v a l u a b l e and c o n f i d e n t i a l information. I a g r e e t h a t f o r a p e r i o d o f two y e a r s f r o m t h e d a t e o f t e r m i n a t i o n o f my employment w i t h [ABC], I s h a l l n o t d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y c o n t a c t , sell and/or s e r v i c e any [ o f ABC's] customers, p o t e n t i a l c u s t o m e r s o r c u s t o m e r s s o l i c i t e d by [ABC] that I d i d i n fact contact, s e l l , s o l i c i t and/or s e r v i c e d u r i n g my employment w i t h [ABC] w h i c h a r e l o c a t e d i n t h e S t a t e o f Alabama and s o u t h o f t h e n o r t h e r n m o s t p o i n t o f C u l l m a n , Alabama and n o r t h o f the southernmost p o i n t of C l a n t o n , Alabama." In the almost 9 years f o l l o w i n g h i s s i g n i n g t h a t Roberson became ABC's p r i m a r y s a l e s m a n agreement, f o r a t l e a s t 36 ABC c u s t o m e r s t h a t were l o c a t e d i n t h e t e r r i t o r y o u t l i n e d i n t h e 2 2080537 agreement (hereinafter referred to as "the covered territory"). On A u g u s t 2, 2004, ABC t e r m i n a t e d R o b e r s o n ' s employment. Thereafter, Roberson c o n t a c t e d competitors i n the Birmingham c o n c r e t e - c u t t i n g obtaining a noncompete Roberson, 2005. sales P e n h a l l , one o f ABC's two c h i e f position. agreement With Roberson a n d he s t a r t e d w o r k i n g Thereafter, completed sales cease t o those ABC i s s u e d and d e s i s t from signed, of the Penhall hired on J a n u a r y of Penhall, 3, contacted and amounting t o a p p r o x i m a t e l y t o Roberson r e q u e s t i n g further about i n the covered t e r r i t o r y clients a letter knowledge f o r Penhall R o b e r s o n , on b e h a l f some o f h i s f o r m e r ABC c l i e n t s $4,000. had full market, s o l i c i t i n g business that he from i t s clients. On February 24, 2005, ABC a g a i n s t Roberson seeking of h i s alleged seeking violation filed a two-count an i n j u n c t i o n a n d damages on a c c o u n t o f t h e noncompete and o f company ABC a l s o a p p l i e d f o r a t e m p o r a r y r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r on M a r c h 17, 2005, a n d f o r a p r e l i m i n a r y 4, 2005. agreement damages f o r R o b e r s o n ' s a l l e g e d c o n v e r s i o n property. complaint i n j u n c t i o n on A p r i l F o l l o w i n g h e a r i n g s on A p r i l 7 a n d 8, 2005, t h e t r i a l 3 2080537 c o u r t d e n i e d ABC's r e q u e s t s and for a preliminary subsequently Roberson Act, amended f o r a temporary r e s t r a i n i n g i n j u n c t i o n on i t s complaint for allegedly violating A l a . Code 1975, defendant, and § to 8-27-1 e t 3, add the court against Trade Secrets seq., entered adding Penhall as a tortiously interfered Roberson. a 2008. judgment $25,000 i n " n o m i n a l " damages on against $25,000 i n damages on R o b e r s o n and ABC claim asserting that Penhall trial 2005. a c a s e p r o c e e d e d t o t r i a l on June 30, 2008, 20, Alabama the w i t h ABC's noncompete a g r e e m e n t w i t h The April order On October awarding i t s breach-of-contract ABC claim i t s intentional- interference-with-contractual-relations claim against Penhall. Following and the Penhall appealed to t h i s case to the and d e n i a l of t h e i r trial court dismissed those court; At claims the 99 ( A l a . C i v . App. '"disposes parties."'" court request with O c t o b e r 3, 2008, j u d g m e n t f i n a l . 2d 97, this f o r i t to adjudicate trade-secrets claims. court postjudgment motion, W r i g h t v. 4 conversion o f ABC, the Wright, trial rendering the So. f i n a l j u d g m e n t i s one o f a l l c l a i m s o r t h e r i g h t s and (quoting the v. T.A.P., 963 See N.H. 2007) ("A remanded the prejudice, Roberson that l i a b i l i t i e s of a l l 882 So. 2d 361, 363 2080537 (Ala. 768 C i v . App. So. Berry, 2003), q u o t i n g 2d 976, 984 977 So. then ripened On court for this appeal, erred by the 968 court's and 533 Penhall the Carlisle, see a l s o F a u l k 2007). consideration. 2d 529, finding and 2000))); ( A l a . C i v . App. So. erred in evidence 427 Roberson in enforceable, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2d 426, C i t y of F l o r e n c e , i n t u r n C a r l i s l e v. The See v. appeal Baugus v. ( A l a . 2007). argue noncompete that the agreement trial to be a w a r d i n g damages t h a t were u n s u p p o r t e d b a s e d on speculation or conjecture, e r r e d i n a w a r d i n g n o m i n a l damages o f $25,000 f o r b r e a c h o f and the noncompete a g r e e m e n t . We first a d d r e s s R o b e r s o n and the trial ABC had e n t e r e d is the Penhall's contention that court e r r e d i n i m p l i e d l y f i n d i n g t h a t Roberson i n t o an e n f o r c e a b l e p u b l i c p o l i c y of Alabama noncompete a g r e e m e n t . that and It contracts restraining employment a r e d i s f a v o r e d . B o o t h v. WPMI T e l e v i s i o n Co., 533 So. ( c i t i n g DeVoe v. Cheatham, 413 So. 2d 209, 2d 1141 most 210 ( A l a . 1988) (Ala. 1982)). agreements 1 Section P u r s u a n t t o § 8 - 1 - 1 ( a ) , A l a . Code restraining employment 8 - 1 - 1 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975, are 1975, void. provides: " E v e r y c o n t r a c t by w h i c h anyone i s r e s t r a i n e d f r o m e x e r c i s i n g a l a w f u l p r o f e s s i o n , t r a d e , or b u s i n e s s o f any kind otherwise t h a n i s p r o v i d e d by this s e c t i o n i s to that extent v o i d . " 5 1 2080537 "Nevertheless, Alabama courts will enforce a non-compete a g r e e m e n t i f i t (1) f a l l s w i t h i n a s t a t u t o r y e x c e p t i o n t o t h e general prohibition, and (2) i s r e a s o n a b l y t e r r i t o r y , d u r a t i o n and s u b j e c t m a t t e r . " Co. v. C o r n u t t , Michael Ala. limited Nationwide as t o Mut. I n s . 907 F.2d 1085, 1087 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1990) (citing L. E d w a r d s , C o v e n a n t s N o t t o Compete i n A l a b a m a , 44 Law. 306 (1983)) (footnotes omitted). S e c t i o n 8 - 1 - 1 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s t h e s t a t u t o r y e x c e p t i o n t o t h e g e n e r a l r u l e by s t a t i n g : " [ O ] n e who i s e m p l o y e d as an a g e n t , s e r v a n t o r e m p l o y e e may a g r e e w i t h h i s e m p l o y e r t o r e f r a i n f r o m c a r r y i n g on o r e n g a g i n g i n a s i m i l a r b u s i n e s s a n d from solic of such employer w i t h i n a sp o r p a r t t h e r e o f so l o n g as t h e on a l i k e b u s i n e s s A ^ II therein." T.TT-I-VS-IT-S 4- V , ^ A noncompete o r n o n s o l i c i t a t i o n a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n an e m p l o y e e and h i s o r her employer i s enforceable r e s t r a i n t of trade pursuant "(1) "(3) the r e s t r i c t i o n p l a c e ; [and] "(4) the r e s t r i c t i o n a reasonable t o § 8-1-1(b) i f : t h e employer has a p r o t e c t a b l e "(2) t h e r e s t r i c t i o n interest; as i s reasonably interest; related to that i s reasonable i m p o s e s no undue 6 i n time and hardship." 2080537 DeVoe v. Kemper Cheatham, & Co. 413 v. Cox So. 2d at 1142; & A s s o c s . , 434 So. see 2d also 1380, James S. 1384 (Ala. and P e n h a l l argue d i d n o t have a p r o t e c t a b l e i n t e r e s t t h a t would 1983). In t h e i r b r i e f t o t h i s c o u r t , Roberson o n l y t h a t ABC sustain order i t s right to possess have "a a t o e n f o r c e t h e noncompete a g r e e m e n t . protectable substantial interest, right the employer i n i t s business In must sufficiently u n i q u e t o w a r r a n t t h e t y p e o f p r o t e c t i o n c o n t e m p l a t e d by n o n - c o m p e t i t i o n agreement." So. 2d 830, 836 502 So. 2d [a] C u l l m a n B r o a d . Co. v. B o s l e y , 373 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) ; a c c o r d C a l h o u n v. B r e n d l e , I n c . , 689, 691 ( A l a . 1986), and G r e e n l e e v. T u s c a l o o s a O f f i c e P r o d s . & S u p p l y , I n c . , 474 So. 2d 669, 671 ( A l a . 1985) . In at assessing the sufficiency determine whether of the i t warrants protection, i n Devoe, s u p r a , r e l i e d on R e s t a t e m e n t § 188, Comment interest B (1979), r e g a r d i n g post-employment which stake t h e supreme (Second) explained court, of Contracts that r e s t r a i n t are u s u a l l y contracts justified "'on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e e m p l o y e r has a l e g i t i m a t e interest in restraining the employee from appropriating valuable trade information and c u s t o m e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s t o w h i c h he has h a d a c c e s s i n t h e c o u r s e o f h i s employment. A r g u a b l y t h e e m p l o y e r does n o t g e t t h e f u l l v a l u e o f t h e employment 7 to 2080537 c o n t r a c t i f he c a n n o t c o n f i d e n t l y g i v e t h e e m p l o y e e a c c e s s t o c o n f i d e n t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n n e e d e d f o r most e f f i c i e n t performance of h i s j o b . ' " Devoe, 413 So. 2d a t 1142-43. By t h a t r e a s o n i n g , an employer has a protectable i n t e r e s t s u f f i c i e n t to j u s t i f y enforcement of a agreement [was] noncompete position lists, So. to gain " [ i ] f an employee confidential information, access to in secret or to develop a c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h c l i e n t s . " 2d a t 1143. "A p r o t e c t a b l e i n t e r e s t can and responsibility." 413 a l s o a r i s e from the employer's i n v e s t m e n t i n i t s employee, i n terms of resources a N a t i o n w i d e , 907 F.2d time, a t 1087¬ 88. R o b e r s o n and P e n h a l l a r g u e t h a t i n h i s r o l e as a s a l e s m a n for ABC lists. R o b e r s o n d i d n o t have a c c e s s t o c o n f i d e n t i a l c u s t o m e r The evidence shows t h a t ABC, Penhall, m a j o r c o n c r e t e - c u t t i n g company b a s i c a l l y cutting tenure market at ABC. in the Those covered three split territory companies and the during solicited one other concreteRoberson's work from c o n s t r u c t i o n companies i n the c o v e r e d t e r r i t o r y t h a t p e r f o r m e d p r o j e c t s r e q u i r i n g concrete customers readily by using available c u t t i n g . ABC sources to containing i t s competitors, 8 identified potential public such as information the Yellow 2080537 Pages, the Internet, "Dodge R e p o r t . " look ABC ABC took confidential a also for construction s o l i c i t business. that and trade publication known as the s e n t i t s s a l e s m e n on t h e r o a d t o projects i n p r o g r e s s from which to The r e c o r d c o n t a i n s no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g any steps manner. to treat Hence, i t s customer Roberson t h a t u n d e r C a l h o u n v. B r e n d l e , and list Penhall I n c . , s u p r a , ABC in a maintain d i d not have a p r o t e c t a b l e i n t e r e s t that would warrant enforcement of the noncompete agreement. Calhoun protectable treated the does hold interest that in a confidentially. proposition identifiable agreement. that an customers An employer an employer customer does list not possess a that However, C a l h o u n h a r d l y employer may never certainly who deals enforce may have i t has not stands f o r with publicly a noncompete a protectable i n t e r e s t o t h e r t h a n an i n t e r e s t i n p r o t e c t i n g t h e i d e n t i t y o f its customers. In this case, the u n d i s p u t e d e v i d e n c e shows that ABC t r a i n e d and d e v e l o p e d R o b e r s o n as a s a l e s m a n i n t h e c o n c r e t e cutting industry. worked B e f o r e c o m i n g t o work f o r ABC, R o b e r s o n h a d for h i s grandfather i n t h e p l u m b i n g b u s i n e s s and 9 he 2080537 knew t h a t t h e knew n o t h i n g ABC, he concrete-cutting about t h a t b u s i n e s s . learned the trade Once i n t h a t p o s i t i o n , ABC entertain ABC's i n d u s t r y e x i s t e d ; however, client and The T h r o u g h h i s employment became a v e r y good at salesman. p r o v i d e d R o b e r s o n w i t h t h e means t o contacts customers. he and to develop record clearly relationships with indicates that those r e l a t i o n s h i p s are i m p o r t a n t to s t i m u l a t i n g b u s i n e s s w i t h i n the concrete-cutting i n d u s t r y and in a v i t a l capacity I n Ormco Co. supreme c o u r t f o r ABC v. t h a t Roberson t h e r e f o r e f o r almost nine J o h n s , 869 recognized So. that i n t e r e s t i n p r o t e c t i n g and 2d 1169 years. (Ala. 2003), e m p l o y e r s have an preserving supra, the the "important" customer r e l a t i o n s h i p s b u i l t and m a i n t a i n e d by t h e i r s a l e s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . v. WPMI T e l e v i s i o n Co., served In Booth supreme c o u r t h e l d t h a t a r a d i o s t a t i o n possessed a p r o t e c t a b l e i n t e r e s t i n i t s customer relationships agreement James S. noncompete employee, that against Kemper would a & former Co., agreement who had warrant been salesman supra, that enforcing several noncompete years. the supreme court been had the of a entered i n t o by only salesman, an solicitor, s e r v i c i n g agent i n Alabama f o r h i s employer, b a s e d 10 upheld In a exor partially 2080537 on the ground that the employer had a vital interest r e s t r a i n i n g the ex-employee from a p p r o p r i a t i n g the c u s t o m e r s w i t h whom t h e e x - e m p l o y e e had during B a s e d on h i s employment. those cases, the trial t h a t ABC's i n v e s t m e n t court the in employer's formed r e l a t i o n s h i p s p r i n c i p l e s espoused i n r e a s o n a b l y c o u l d have i n R o b e r s o n and the valuable concluded customer r e l a t i o n s h i p s R o b e r s o n had b u i l t and m a i n t a i n e d f o r ABC while e m p l o y e d by ABC would constituted protectable interests that j u s t i f y e n f o r c e m e n t o f t h e noncompete a g r e e m e n t . affirm the trial court's judgment noncompete a g r e e m e n t t o be We next pertaining to address damages. insofar as We therefore i t holds the enforceable. Roberson In and Penhall's i t s judgment, the arguments trial stated: " R o b e r s o n t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had c o n t a c t e d t h r e e o r f o u r f o r m e r c u s t o m e r s o f [ABC] s i n c e h i s t e r m i n a t i o n and s i n c e he went t o work f o r [ P e n h a l l ] . He f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had s o l d p r o d u c t s e r v i c e s the v a l u e i n w h i c h he e s t i m a t e d t o be s e v e r a l t h o u s a n d d o l l a r s . W i t n e s s , Tim Robertson, t e s t i f i e d that [ R o b e r s o n ] came o u t and s o l d t o [a c o n s t r u c t i o n company] and t h a t t h e y u s e d P e n h a l l i n s t e a d o f ABC. "Some o f t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d r e l a t i v e damages c l a i m e d was speculative at best. undisputed that ABC business declined [Roberson] l e f t . I t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t P e n h a l l i n c r e a s e d when [ R o b e r s o n ] s t a r t e d work f o r 11 t o the It is after sales them. court 2080537 However, t h e r e were no f a c t s t o s u p p o r t what ABC's l o s s o f b u s i n e s s i n d o l l a r s and c e n t s w o u l d have b e e n due t o [ R o b e r s o n ' s ] employment w i t h P e n h a l l . [ABC's p r e s i d e n t ] t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d n ' t have any numbers t o o f f e r t h e C o u r t r e l a t i v e t o how much b u s i n e s s he l o s t b e c a u s e o f [ R o b e r s o n ] . "On t h e i s s u e on w h e t h e r [ P e n h a l l ] i n t e r f e r e d w i t h t h e c o n t r a c t u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n [ABC] and [Roberson], the Court f i n d s from the evidence t h a t [Penhall] did i n t e n t i o n a l l y interfere with the c o n t r a c t u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p o f [ABC] and [ R o b e r s o n ] . " T h e r e f o r e , i t i s O r d e r e d , A d j u d g e d and D e c r e e d , t h a t [ R o b e r s o n ] pay [ABC] n o m i n a l damages i n t h e amount o f Twenty F i v e T h o u s a n d D o l l a r s and 00/100 ($25,000.00) f o r b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t . " I t i s f u r t h e r O r d e r e d , A d j u d g e d and D e c r e e d , t h a t [ P e n h a l l ] pay [ABC] damages i n t h e amount o f Twenty F i v e T h o u s a n d and 00/100 D o l l a r s ($25,000.00) f o r i n t e n t i o n a l i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h the c o n t r a c t u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n [ABC] and [ R o b e r s o n ] . " (Bold typeface Roberson omitted.) and Penhall argue that the evidence s u p p o r t t h e a w a r d o f $50,000 i n damages i n t h i s c a s e . their argument evidence convinced is relating that the premised on the court damages. 12 did not However, we award not Much o f i n s u f f i c i e n c y of t o c o m p e n s a t o r y damages. trial does the are compensatory 2080537 After determining evidence regarding t h a t ABC the had extent of offered only the speculative m o n e t a r y damage t o i t s b u s i n e s s by R o b e r s o n ' s b r e a c h o f t h e noncompete a g r e e m e n t , a f t e r n o t i n g t h a t ABC's c o r p o r a t e t h a t he due 596 had no to the So. breach, 2d claiming estimate 565, see 570 r e p r e s e n t a t i v e had as t o how Universal (Ala. compensatory 1991) damages (holding for its i t w o u l d have g o t t e n that breach f o r m e r s a l e s m a n ' s new a judgment a g a i n s t the of d e n o m i n a t e d s o l e l y as an award of breached actual nominal a contract damage or Kemper & Co. , 434 b a s e d on the b r e a c h but extent are and the but the noncompete to trial to prove So. at 1385. 2d o f any entered of $25,000, w h i c h i t Under A l a b a m a proper when either actual a suffered damage. James as a r e s u l t o f awarded i n r e c o g n i t i o n of the law, defendant N o m i n a l damages a r e loss sustained 13 court claim a s s e r t i n g breach plaintiff failed employer b u s i n e s s t h a t went " n o m i n a l damages." is Inc., by a w a r d e d ABC damages lost breach e m p l o y e r ) , the R o b e r s o n on noncompete a g r e e m e n t the had Door S y s . , a g r e e m e n t must p r o v e i t l o s t money b e c a u s e o f t h e showing t h a t admitted much b u s i n e s s ABC C o r s o n v. and i n v a s i o n of no S. not the the 2080537 l e g a l r i g h t s of the p l a i n t i f f . v. See A v i s R e n t - A - C a r S y s . , I n c . H e i l m a n , 876 So. 2d 1111, 1120 The t r i a l was ( A l a . 2003) . court d i d not designate awarding against "damages." The interference with Penhall; t h e t y p e o f damages i t i t m e r e l y r e f e r r e d t o them as damages recoverable for intentional a contractual relationship include: "'(1) t h e p e c u n i a r y l o s s o f t h e b e n e f i t s o f t h e ... relation; (2) c o n s e q u e n t i a l losses f o r which the i n t e r f e r e n c e i s a l e g a l c a u s e ; ... (3) e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s o r a c t u a l harm t o r e p u t a t i o n i f e i t h e r i s reasonably t o be e x p e c t e d t o r e s u l t from the i n t e r f e r e n c e , ' KW P l a s t i c s v. U n i t e d S t a t e s Can Co., 131 F. Supp. 2d 1265, 1268 (M.D. A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) ; and (4) p u n i t i v e damages." W h i t e Sands G r o u p , L.L.C. v. PRS I I , L L C , [Ms. 1080312, S e p t . 4, 2009] trial So. 3d court pecuniary , found that ( A l a . 2009). ABC or consequential In t h i s case, the d i d not prove the extent of i t s l o s s e s , and the r e c o r d c o n t a i n s no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s o r a c t u a l harm t o ABC's r e p u t a t i o n h a d o c c u r r e d from Penhall's Thus, interference i t appears that o r c o u l d be r e a s o n a b l y e x p e c t e d with the c o m p e n s a t o r y damages a g a i n s t t h e noncompete a g r e e m e n t . trial Penhall. court did not Hence, t h e t r i a l award court must have a w a r d e d ABC n o m i n a l damages a n d / o r p u n i t i v e damages. Penhall concedes that i t interfered with 14 the contractual 2080537 r e l a t i o n s h i p between Roberson a n d ABC, t h u s a c k n o w l e d g i n g an i n v a s i o n o f ABC's l e g a l r i g h t s t h a t w o u l d s u p p o r t an a w a r d o f n o m i n a l damages. A v i s Rent-A-Car o f n o m i n a l damages w i l l Life Sys., I n c . , supra. An a w a r d s u p p o r t an a w a r d o f p u n i t i v e damages. I n s u r a n c e Co. o f G e o r g i a v . S m i t h , 719 So. 2 d 797 ( A l a . 1998). Roberson nominal and P e n h a l l damages that i s excessive. address t h a t argument. not argue As an a w a r d o f $25,000 a s to Penhall, As shown above, i n d i c a t e the nature o f t h e damages P e n h a l l , except t o e l i m i n a t e compensatory we the t r i a l court d i d i t awarded damages. o f n o m i n a l damages a n d no p u n i t i v e damages. ... t h e a p p e l l a n t [ ] t o d e m o n s t r a t e against We assume t h e $25,000 a w a r d e d a g a i n s t P e n h a l l c o n s i s t e d of cannot cannot entirely " ' I t i s the duty an e r r o r on t h e p a r t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ; t h i s c o u r t w i l l n o t presume s u c h e r r o r on t h e part of the t r i a l court. M a r v i n ' s , I n c . v. R o b e r t s o n , 608 So. 2d 391, 393 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . ' " D.C.S. v . L.B., 4 So. 3d 513, 521 (Ala. C i v . App. 2008) (quoting G.E.A. v. D.B.A., 920 So. 2 d 1110, 1114 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) ) . Because the t r i a l court's a w a r d o f damages a g a i n s t P e n h a l l c o u l d have b e e n i n t h e n a t u r e o f p u n i t i v e damages a n d b e c a u s e 15 P e n h a l l has f a i l e d t o argue 2080537 t h a t any waived a w a r d o f p u n i t i v e damages was that Investors Life ("Issues not therefore On argument. Ins. Co., argued a f f i r m the the other See in Waddell 875 So. court's hand, the & Reed, 2d a party's trial excessive, trial 1143, Penhall Inc. 1167 b r i e f are v. United (Ala. 2003) waived."). judgment a g a i n s t court award. Alabama law A l a b a m a law permits has not on t h e amount t h a t can be their very nature, t r i f l i n g sum there "[a] l a b e l e d the $25,000 a large heretofore (8th Citizens 1977) the amount ed. damages f i x e d as 2004) Bank o f are intended damages limit to be by "[a] (emphasis Black's added); G u n t e r s v i l l e , 350 in dicta, that of the jurisdiction (quoting Corbin So. see in Law also 2d nominal on C o n t r a c t s , 16 compensated" for breach f i x e d , w i t h o u t r e g a r d to the e x t e n t custom brought'" e s t a b l i s h e d any s u b s t a n t i a l l o s s o r i n j u r y t o be (recognizing, s m a l l sum nominal-damages a w a r d e d as n o m i n a l damages, b u t , w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o t h e amount o f harm." 418 issue a w a r d e d when a l e g a l i n j u r y i s s u f f e r e d b u t when i s no small such such We Penhall. a w a r d a g a i n s t R o b e r s o n as " n o m i n a l damages," r a i s i n g t h e whether has which 1031, of or contract Dictionary Williams 1033 v. (Ala. damages a r e "'a o f harm done, by the action V o l . 5, § 1001, p. is 29- 2080537 30, and citing 1899))); Zok ("Nominal Kelly v. Alaska, damages damages."). v. are Nominal Fahrney, 903 by 97 176 574, P.2d F. 578 definition damages d e f i n i t e l y a p p r o x i m a t i o n s o f the compensatory (C.C.W.D. A r k . (Alaska minimal are not 1995) monetary i n t e n d e d as damages t h a t c o u l d have o r s h o u l d have b e e n p r o v e n . L i k e A l a b a m a , M a r y l a n d has no statute, rule, or e s t a b l i s h i n g a l i m i t on an a w a r d o f n o m i n a l damages. v. S m i t h , 173 Md. App. 459, 920 A.2d 18 (Md. caselaw I n Brown C t . Spec. 2007), the Court of S p e c i a l Appeals of Maryland stated: " I n t h e a b s e n c e o f a u t h o r i t y l i m i t i n g an a w a r d o f n o m i n a l damages, t h e p r e v a i l i n g v i e w a p p e a r s t o be t h a t , a l t h o u g h t h e amount o f n o m i n a l damages ' i s n o t l i m i t e d t o one d o l l a r , t h e n a t u r e o f t h e a w a r d c o m p e l s t h a t t h e amount be m i n i m a l . ' [Cummings v. C o n n e l l , 402 F.3d 936,] a t 943 [ ( 9 t h C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) ] ; [s]ee a l s o Romano v. U - H a u l I n t ' l , 233 F.3d 655, 671 (1st C i r . 2000) [] ( a p p l y i n g same p r i n c i p l e , in i n t e r p r e t i n g j u r y a w a r d o f $15,000 i n s o - c a l l e d n o m i n a l damages f o r c i v i l r i g h t s v i o l a t i o n as a c o m p e n s a t o r y damage a w a r d ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 534 U.S. 815, 122 S.Ct. 41, 151 L.Ed.2d 14 ( 2 0 0 1 ) ; Creem v. C i c e r o , 12 Conn. App. 607, 533 A.2d 234, 236 (1987) ( ' " G e n e r a l l y , n o m i n a l damages a r e f i x e d w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o t h e e x t e n t o f harm done and a r e a s s e s s e d i n some t r i f l i n g or t r i v i a l amount"') (citation o m i t t e d ) ; The T o l e d o Group, I n c . v. B e n t o n I n d u s . , Inc., 87 O h i o App. 3d 798, 623 N.E.2d 205, 211 (1993) ('"Nominal damages" a r e some s m a l l amount o f money, s u c h as $ 1 ' ) ; T e x a s v. M i l e s , 458 S.W.2d 943, 944 (Tex. C i v . App. 1970) ('"Nominal" damages c o n s i s t of a very small, t r i v i a l or i n c o n s i d e r a b l e 17 App. 2080537 sum a w a r d e d w h e r e , f r o m t h e n a t u r e o f t h e c a s e , i n j u r y h a s b e e n done, b u t t h e amount o f w h i c h t h e p r o o f f a i l s t o show'). "Thus, e v e n t h o u g h t h e sum a w a r d e d a s n o m i n a l damages may vary somewhat according to c i r c u m s t a n c e s , n e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e award may be deemed e x c e s s i v e i f i t c a n n o t r e a s o n a b l y be c o n s i d e r e d ' m i n i m a l ' i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e c a s e . See, e.g., T a q u i n o v . T e l e d y n e M o n a r c h R u b b e r , 893 F . 2 d 1488, 1491 ( 5 t h C i r . 1990) ( v a c a t i n g award o f $10,000 as excessive under Louisiana law); C h e s a p e a k e & Potomac T e l . Co. v . C l a y , 194 F . 2 d 888, 890 (D.C. C i r . 1952) ( r e d u c i n g award o f $500 t o $ 1 ) ; P i e r s o n v . B r o o k s , 115 I d a h o 529, 768 P.2d 792, 800 (Ct. App. 1989) ('the sum o f $2, 500 i s more t h a n n o m i n a l ' ) ; D a v i d s o n v . S c h n e i d e r , 349 S.W.2d 908, 913 (Mo. 1961) (award o f $530 i n damages was n o t a nominal award, but 'an e f f o r t at measured c o m p e n s a t i o n ' ) ; F i s h e r v . B a r k e r , 159 O h i o App. 3 d 745, 825 N.E.2d 244, 247 (2005) (award o f $1,500 was jury's unsupported estimate of value of converted p r o p e r t y , n o t n o m i n a l damages); B a r b i e r v. B a r r y , 345 S.W.2d 557, 563 (Tex. C i v . App. 1961) ('$10,000 i s e x c e s s i v e as n o m i n a l damages'); K e e s l i n g v. C i t y of S e a t t l e , 52 Wash. 2 d 247, 324 P.2d 806, 809 (1958) ($1 p e r d a y damage award f o r t r e s p a s s o f power t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e s i x i n c h e s o n t o p l a i n t i f f ' s property was substantial and unsupported c o m p e n s a t o r y award, n o t n o m i n a l d a m a g e s ) . "We w i l l a p p l y t h i s p r e v a i l i n g v i e w b e c a u s e we t h i n k t h a t t o a l l o w more s u b s t a n t i a l awards t o f a l l w i t h i n t h e r u b r i c o f n o m i n a l damages w o u l d v i t i a t e the concept underlying such awards, which i s recognition of the v i o l a t i o n of a right, not to c o m p e n s a t e f o r a c t u a l i n j u r y . ... "To a f f i r m a s u b s t a n t i a l damage a w a r d t h a t i s c a t e g o r i z e d b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t as ' n o m i n a l damages' would i n v i t e u n c e r t a i n t y f o r t r i a l judges and j u r i e s r e g a r d i n g what a r e ' n o m i n a l damages' a n d how t h e y 18 2080537 d i f f e r f r o m c o m p e n s a t o r y damages. When a c o u r t o r j u r y makes an a c t u a l damages award, i t must f o c u s on the nature and e x t e n t of the injury to the p l a i n t i f f , applying well defined legal p r i n c i p l e s a b o u t how t h a t i n j u r y may t r a n s l a t e i n t o a d o l l a r amount. ... When a c o u r t o r j u r y makes a n o m i n a l damages a w a r d , h o w e v e r , i t n e e d n o t f o c u s on t h e i n j u r y t o t h e p l a i n t i f f , b u t m e r e l y on r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e r i g h t . ... I f we were t o a l l o w a j u d g e o r jury t o a w a r d a s u b s t a n t i a l sum a s s o - c a l l e d ' n o m i n a l damages,' w h i c h a r e n e i t h e r b a s e d on t h e i n j u r y nor subject t o the l e g a l p r i n c i p l e s governing damage a w a r d s , we w o u l d be c r e a t i n g a new c l a s s o f damages t h a t a r e n e i t h e r c o m p e n s a t o r y n o r p u n i t i v e . W i t h s u c h an u n c e r t a i n f o u n d a t i o n , any a w a r d o f t h i s n a t u r e p o s e s an i n t o l e r a b l e r i s k o f an a r b i t r a r y result." 173 Md. App. a t 480-83, 920 A . 2 d a t 30-32 ( f o o t n o t e omitted). We a r e i n a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e C o u r t o f S p e c i a l A p p e a l s o f Maryland that nominal damages violations sustained Avina of legal majority be rights of courts minimal when have awards no Colorado actual See, e.g., 28 C a l . App. 3 d 1086, 105 C a l . R p t r . Inv. Servs., Inc. v. Hager, MTW Inv. that Georgia Co. v. A l c o v y 198 685 P.2d 1 3 7 1 , 193 Or. 634, 240 P.2d 231 law d i f f e r s on t h i s Props., Inc., 19 that damages a r e a n d F o o t e v . C l a r k , 962 P.2d 52 (Utah 1 9 9 8 ) . we r e c o g n i z e held for technical o r no a c t u a l damages have b e e n p r o v e n . ( C o l . 1 9 8 4 ) ; H a l l v. C o r n e t t , (1952); e.g., should v. S p u r l o c k , (1992); 1375 the vast Although point, see, 273 Ga. App. 830, 2080537 616 S.E.2d 166 (2005) damages i n wrongful ( a f f i r m i n g a w a r d o f $625,000 i n n o m i n a l l i s pendens a c t i o n based on v i e w n o m i n a l damages a r e r e l a t i v i s t i c i n n a t u r e ) , we c a n n o t Georgia's view of nominal treatment of nominal damages damages t o Alabama's as a mere that conform historical recognition of the commitment o f a l e g a l w r o n g . In t h i s case, t h e t r i a l c o u r t concluded t h a t Roberson had breached legal t h e noncompete agreement. rights justified t h e award o f n o m i n a l did not authorize the t r i a l as $25,000. The i n v a s i o n damages, b u t i t c o u r t t o a w a r d an amount as h i g h We t h e r e f o r e r e v e r s e t h e j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r as i t awards $25,000 i n n o m i n a l damages a g a i n s t R o b e r s o n the case f o r t h e t r i a l a n d remand c o u r t t o e n t e r a new j u d g m e n t a m i n i m a l amount o f n o m i n a l damages a g a i n s t APPLICATION o f ABC's OVERRULED; OPINION OF awarding Roberson. JANUARY 29, 2 0 1 0 , WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; AFFIRMED I N PART; REVERSED I N PART; AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , and Pittman, concur. 20 Bryan, a n d Thomas, JJ.,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.