Eysoldt v. ProScan Imaging
194 Ohio App. 3d 630
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Jeff Eysoldt opened Go Daddy account 1165490 in 2002 and registered Eysoldt.com under Go Daddy terms later replaced by UTOS.
- Jeff used the account to manage multiple domain names and emails, and funded via his credit card; he also set up accounts for family.
- Jeff entered a business relationship with ProScan Imaging owners for Rejuvenate; domain Myrejuvenate.com was registered through Jeff’s Go Daddy account.
- Ruth Wallace, ProScan CFO, sought to have Myrejuvenate.com transferred to ProScan; Baranowsky of Go Daddy guided Wallace through taking control.
- Wallace gained control of Jeff’s account and Jeff’s family emails and websites, with Jeff excluded from access and stopped payments.
- Eysoldts sued for invasion of privacy and conversion; trial court denied summary judgment; jury found for plaintiffs on compensatory damages and punitive damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Economic-loss doctrine applicability | Economic-loss doctrine does not bar intentional-tort claims. | Doctrine applies to all contract-based economic harms, despite intent. | Doctrine does not apply to intentional torts. |
| Convertibility of intangible property | Intangible property (domain names, emails) can be converted. | No conversion of intangible property recognized; limited to tangible. | Intangible property subject to conversion; proper for jury to decide. |
| Ownership and control over account | Eysoldts owners of associated content; Go Daddy wrongfully converted private communications. | Account registered to Jeff; others had no ownership interest. | Evidence supports jury finding of conversion of private emails/content. |
| Invasion of privacy sufficiency | Intrusion of private emails and accounts was unwarranted and offensive. | Need showing Go Daddy accessed emails; intrusion not proven. | Evidence supported jury on intrusion-in-private-activities; need not show actual access. |
| Punitive damages support | Baranowsky’s inaction/actions show malice or conscious disregard. | No actual malice proven; conduct not egregious enough. | Directed verdict on punitive damages affirmed; no actual malice shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 47 Ohio St.2d 226 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1976) (balancing right of publicity with First Amendment interests; issues of damages and intrusion)
- Blair v. McDonagh, 177 Ohio App.3d 262 (Ohio App.3d 2008) (jury-demand waiver and related procedural considerations)
- Marder v. Marder, 2008-Ohio-2500 (Ohio App. 12th Dist. 2008) (best-evidence and related evidentiary rule applications)
- Giles v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 2007) (economic-loss doctrine and its limits in non-negligence contexts)
- SMI Owen Steel Co., Inc. v. Marsh USA, Inc., 520 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 2008) (economic-loss doctrine and contract-based duties in multi-party transactions)