Architectural Mfg. Co. of America v. Airotec, Inc., 44088

• Decision Date: 04 February 1969
• Docket Number: No. 44088,No. 2,44088,2
• Citation: 119 Ga.App. 245,166 S.E.2d 744
• Parties: ARCHITECTURAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF AMERICA v. AIROTEC, INC., et al
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 744

166 S.E.2d 744

119 Ga.App. 245

ARCHITECTURAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF AMERICA v. AIROTEC, INC., et al.

No. 44088.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

Feb. 4, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 28, 1969.

Certiorari Denied April 14, 1969.

Syllabus by the Court

The trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendants in the plaintiff's action for damages for interference with its business.

The defendants Scott and Biron entered into contracts of employment with the plaintiff, here referred to as AMCOA, in the mid-1950's as general manager and chief engineer respectively of the architectural and shower door divisions of the company, which sells its products by bidding on and entering into contracts with building contractors and others referred to or called to its attention by sales representatives throughout the country. These sales representatives receive the advantage of being listed under the AMCOA name in a listing catalogue, are independent contractors, and may or may not in addition handle other business for non-competing firms. In January, 1964, Scott, whose opinion was that AMCOA was on shaky financial ground, had certain preliminary discussions with Airolite Company, and Ohio corporation, which was interested in opening up a new architectural division along the lines of AMCOA. Biron's was an at-will contract, and Scott's contract contained a provision making it terminable by either party on 30-day notice. In May, 1964, Scott, in the course of his duties for AMCOA made a trip to the West Coast and back for the purpose of conferring with sales representatives along the route, all of whom were under his jurisdiction and most of whom he had signed up initially to work for the plaintiff. On the return trip from California Scott with AMCOA funds, purchased a ticket to Pittsburgh, and on completing the company business there went on to Ohio where he met the president and other officers of Airolite Company, after which he and they returned to Atlanta on Sunday, May 31, 1964, in an airplane belonging to Airolite. Scott and Biron immediately called Robbins, the owner of AMCOA, and requested that he meet them at once at the plant, which he did. Scott and Biron then informed Robbins that they were resigning to go with Airolite and that Airolite was in the market to purchase AMCOA. Robbins released Scott from his contract notice of termination, thought the matter over for a few days, and then refused to sell. A new company, the defendant Airotec, Inc., was set up under the direction of Scott and Biron which entered into competition with the plaintiff. The petition seeks damages against Airotec, Scott and Biron on the basis of conspiracy to damage the plaintiff's business as a result of which it suffered certain named losses and expenses, primarily in acquiring and training sales representatives. The acts alleged as tortious were (1) forming a competitive company while still employed by the plaintiff, (2) unauthorized use of confidential lists and information belonging to the plaintiff in its competitive effort, (3) interfering with AMCOA's contracts, and (4) pirating its employees and sales representatives. At the conclusion of the evidence the trial court directed a verdict for the defendants and this judgment is urged as error.

Smith, Cohen, Ringel, Kohler, Martin & Lowe, John W. Chambers, Atlanta, for appellant.

Robert F. Lyle, Grant, Spears & Duckworth, William G. Grant, Atlanta, for appellees.

DEEN, Judge.

1. Construing the evidence as we must against the motion for directed verdict the following must be considered. In the opinion of Biron, what Airolite wanted was an organization that could compete with its main competitor in the already established louver and manufacturing field, which competitor had an architectural specialties division, which Airolite lacked. In April before Scott and Biron left in May, Scott had a list prepared for his use showing all job bids by AMCOA which totaled over $10,000. He admitted that such a list would contain information helpful to a competitor, and, although he denied having shown it to the Airolite people and stated that it was a routine list of a type prepared regularly in the course of business, no such list had recently been prepared at AMCOA prior to this one. Scott also had prepared a list of recently completed jobs showing customer, type of materials and amount, which was mailed to him in California immediately prior to his visit to the Airolite Ohio plant, and as to this he could not state definitely that it had not been shown to the Airolite people. During the two days immediately following their resignation, Scott and Biron called virtually all the sales representatives of AMCOA throughout the country to inform them of their resignation and that Airolite would either buy AMCOA or that they would start their own company. Within a week a number of the sales representatives' 'at-will' contracts were canceled due to these calls. Sales representatives were informed that a majority of their number were cancelling and coming with Airotec. Sixty-two of AMCOA's total of 65 sales representatives were contacted and a letter dated June 9 went out to them which stated in part: 'Since sales policies, pricing and engineering designs were all originated by Doug (Biron) and myself in the parent company (Amcoa) you naturally can expect very little deviation in the new company. Doug and I both appreciate the votes of confidence the vast majority of you have given us in deciding to go along in this new venture. * * * We now have the opportunity to build an identical organization having had the experience of doing it once before. The backing of a bluechip arch, products firm and the sales organization that already knows the products-this combination has to be a winner.' Of the 62 sales representatives contacted, 25 of the total new 28 unit sales force of Airotec...