Joseph W. Peine v. Elite Airfreight, Inc.
01-14-00860-CV
| Tex. App. | Aug 11, 2016Background
- Peine sued Elite for breach of oral employment agreements (2002–2006), alleging Elite promised salary plus a bonus equal to 50% of gross profits of the warehousing business (ALSI) and failed to pay the bonus.
- Peine testified he was hired by Elite’s president, Bobby Hale, in October 2002 and that he worked for Elite/ALSI from 2002–2006; personnel forms and W-2s sometimes listed ALSI or Administaff as employer.
- Peine claimed the 2002 agreement was reaffirmed annually in January of 2003–2006, but offered no independent evidence of new or amended agreements for those years.
- Edward Peine (appellant’s brother), former counsel for Elite and ALSI, was deposed and later excluded from testifying at trial on grounds of attorney–client privilege; appellant proffered Edward’s testimony in a sealed bill of exceptions.
- At the close of appellant’s case the trial court granted a directed verdict for Elite. The court also sealed portions of the record; appellant challenged exclusion of Edward’s testimony and the sealing on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether directed verdict on breach-of-contract claims (2002–2006) was erroneous (legal sufficiency) | Peine: testified to an oral 2002 agreement (salary + 50% gross profit bonus) and to annual reaffirmations in 2003–2006; submitted profit figures and pay records to show unpaid bonuses | Elite: no meeting of the minds for promised bonus amount for 2003–2006; no damages for 2002 because Peine testified he was not owed a 2002 bonus | Court affirmed directed verdict: no damages for 2002 (Peine admitted no bonus owed); no evidence of meeting of minds for 2003–2006 oral contracts, so legal insufficiency for those claims |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by excluding Edward (attorney) testimony as privileged | Peine: exclusion prevented presentation of evidence about the 2002 meeting and company dealings; Elite waived privilege by deposing Edward and eliciting testimony earlier | Elite: confidentiality/protective order preserved privilege and allowed discovery without waiving privileges | Court held exclusion not harmful: even if excluded, evidence would not change outcome (no 2002 damages; Edward had no knowledge of formation of 2003–2006 contracts); issue overruled |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by sealing portions of the record | Peine: sealing interfered with appellate review and improperly protected evidence | Elite: maintained confidentiality per protective order and privilege claims | Court did not reach merits of sealing issue because disposition made it unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal-sufficiency standard and review principles)
- Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Fin. Review Servs., Inc., 29 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. 2000) (plaintiff fails to present evidence on essential fact supports directed verdict)
- Beverick v. Koch Power, Inc., 186 S.W.3d 145 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005) (elements of breach-of-contract claim)
- Celmer v. McGarry, 412 S.W.3d 691 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013) (party’s later subjective belief does not establish meeting of the minds)
- Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391 (Tex. 1983) (contract interpretation as a matter of law when instrument is unambiguous)