Airgas-Southwest, Inc. v. IWS Gas & Supply of Texas, Ltd.
390 S.W.3d 472
Tex. App.2012Background
- IWS sued Airgas for malicious prosecution; Individual Employees’ claims were dismissed at summary judgment, and the final judgment awarded IWS damages against Airgas but was partially reversed on appeal.
- Airgas acquired Aeriform during which four Aeriform salesmen joined IWS, and customers began leaving Airgas/Aeriform, triggering suspicions of misappropriation of confidential information.
- Airgas also pursued Gulf Oxygen, and several Gulf Oxygen employees defected to IWS; after acquisitions, contracts went missing or were unavailable.
- In the underlying litigation, Airgas obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) restricting IWS and employees from contacting Airgas personnel or customers, but Airgas did not pursue a full injunction; underlying claims proceeded to trial with IWS alleging malicious prosecution.
- The jury found Airgas maliciously prosecuted IWS, awarding limited damages; the trial court entered a judgment in IWS’s favor, which Airgas and the Individual Employees appealed; the court ultimately held the TRO did not satisfy the “special injury” requirement for malicious prosecution, reversing as to IWS and affirming as to the Individual Employees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IWS suffered a special injury to support malicious prosecution | IWS relied on the TRO as interference with person/property | TRO did not cause a qualifying special injury (no physical arrest/detention) | No; TRO did not constitute special injury; IWS take-nothing |
| Whether the Individual Employees’ malicious-prosecution claims survive no-evidence review | TRO caused special injury to each Employee | TRO did not produce a special injury for any Employee | Dismissed; no evidence of a special injury |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas Beef C cattle Co. v. Green, 921 S.W.2d 203 (Tex. 1996) (special injury requires physical interference; no injury here)
- Pye v. Cardwell, 222 S.W. 153 (Tex. 1920) (arrest or seizure required for special injury)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (no-evidence review standard; standards for sufficiency)
- Ross v. Arkwright Mut. Ins. Co., 892 S.W.2d 119 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1994) (special injury limits and ordinary litigation costs not sufficient)
- Bell v. Sharif-Munir-Davidson Dev. Corp., 788 S.W.2d 427 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1990) (injunction or interference must be with person/property)
- Toranto v. Wall, 891 S.W.2d 3 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1994) (special injury requirement adherence in Texas)