Doggett v. Travis Law Firm, P.C.
555 S.W.3d 127
Tex. App.2018Background
- Gregory Travis and William Hammond agreed to operate as Travis & Hammond; Hammond disputed whether he was a partner or a contract employee.
- Jeffrey Doggett worked with the firm as an "of counsel"/contract lawyer and used the firm name, letterhead, email (jdoggett@travishammondlaw.com), phone, and marketing materials for his practice.
- Doggett represented a client (Li) in litigation while using the firm name and received $14,279.31 for that representation; Li later sued Doggett and the firm for malpractice but non-suited her claims.
- The Travis Law Firm sued Doggett alleging negligence and invasion of privacy by appropriation of name or likeness (plus other claims later); the jury found for the firm on misappropriation and awarded $24,279.31.
- Doggett moved for JNOV arguing, inter alia, that corporations have no privacy right and thus cannot recover for appropriation; the trial court entered judgment for the firm and Doggett appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a corporation may recover for invasion of privacy by appropriation of name/likeness | Corp can sue for misappropriation of its name/likeness and recover damages | Texas law recognizes no corporate right of privacy; appropriation is a species of privacy tort so corporation cannot recover | Court held corporations do not have a right to privacy and cannot recover on appropriation claims |
| Whether the evidence supported appropriation elements (value, identification, benefit, causation) | Firm argued Doggett used the name for its value and benefited, causing injury | Doggett challenged sufficiency of evidence on each required element | Court did not reach merits after holding the claim unavailable to a corporation |
| Whether attorney fees from prior litigation are recoverable as actual damages for appropriation | Firm sought fees from prior malpractice suit as damages | Doggett argued fees aren’t recoverable because Texas hasn’t adopted an equitable exception, attorneys representing themselves don’t incur fees, and firm wasn’t prevailing party | Court declined to address these issues because it reversed on the corporate-privacy threshold question |
| Whether defenses (consent, estoppel) barred recovery | Firm maintained it did not consent / was not estopped | Doggett asserted the firm consented to his use and was estopped from complaining | Court did not decide these defenses after resolving that corporation cannot recover under the tort |
Key Cases Cited
- Billings v. Atkinson, 489 S.W.2d 858 (Tex. 1973) (invasion of privacy is an intentional tort)
- Cain v. Hearst Corp., 878 S.W.2d 577 (Tex. 1994) (Texas recognizes three privacy flavors and declined to adopt false light)
- Express One Int'l, Inc. v. Steinbeck, 53 S.W.3d 895 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2001) (examined corporate misappropriation claim and affirmed dismissal for lack of evidence)
- U.S. Sporting Prods., Inc. v. Johnny Stewart Game Calls, Inc., 865 S.W.2d 214 (Tex. App.-Waco 1993) (recognized misappropriation theory within unfair competition, not as privacy tort)
- Matthews v. Wozencraft, 15 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 1994) (articulating elements of appropriation tort)
- Meadows v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 492 F.3d 634 (5th Cir. 2007) (noting Texas courts apply a restrictive view of appropriation claims)
- International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918) (classic unfair competition precedent recognizing appropriation concepts)
- Gilmore v. Sammons, 269 S.W. 861 (Tex. Civ. App.-Dallas 1925) (early Texas decision discussing appropriation/unfair competition)