Greenville Automatic Gas Co. v. Automatic Propane Gas and Supply, LLC and Steven Anderson
465 S.W.3d 778
Tex. App.2015Background
- Anderson, employed by Greenville for ~15 years as a route driver, signed an Employment Agreement claimed to include a covenant not to compete and a non-solicitation clause.
- Greenville later argued Anderson signed a nine-page Employment Agreement; Anderson alleged he did not sign the terms or the agreement attached to Greenville's pleading.
- Anderson left Greenville in 2011 to work for Automatic Propane; Greenville and counsel sought to enforce covenants against Anderson and Automatic Propane.
- Greenville asserted multiple counterclaims against Anderson and Automatic Propane, including breach of contract, misappropriation, and unfair competition; defendants filed defenses and amended pleadings without verified denials.
- The trial court denied Greenville’s traditional summary judgment on breach of contract; granted summary judgment for defendants on several tort counterclaims; evidence on contract formation submitted to jury; jury found Anderson did not agree to the Employment Agreement terms; trial court awarded fees to appellees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury was properly asked about contract formation | Greenville contends no verified denial existed, so the contract formation question should not have been submitted. | Appellees argued the verification issue was not bound by Rule 93 timing and the contract terms were admitted by lack of a verified denial. | Question No. 1 improperly submitted; reversal and remand. |
| Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment on tort counterclaims | Greenville argues merits exist for tort counterclaims against appellees. | Appellees contend no-evidence and traditional motions show no triable issue on those tort claims. | Summary judgment on tort counterclaims affirmed; Greenville take-nothing on these counts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sixth RM A Partners, L.P. v. Sibley, 111 S.W.3d 46 (Tex. 2003) (amendment of pleadings to cure deficiencies; court reviews amendments)
- Greenhalgh v. Serv. Lloyds Ins. Co., 787 S.W.2d 939 (Tex. 1990) (trial court may refuse amendments adding new defenses)
- Preston State Bank v. Jordan, 692 S.W.2d 740 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1985) (must prove contract existence with evidence; otherwise cannot enforce)
- Keystone Pipe & Supply Co. of Tex. v. Kleeden, 299 S.W.671 (Tex. Civ. App.—Amarillo 1927) (contracts signed by parties are prima facie evidence of terms)
- Affordable Motor Co. v. LNA, LLC, 351 S.W.3d 515 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011) (unverified pleadings can affect admissibility and burden of proof)