Diesel Injection Sales & Services, Inc. v. Renfro

• Decision Date: 23 June 1983
• Docket Number: No. 13-82-234-CV,13-82-234-CV
• Citation: 656 S.W.2d 568
• Parties: DIESEL INJECTION SALES & SERVICES, INC., Appellant, v. Kevin RENFRO, et al., Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 568

656 S.W.2d 568

DIESEL INJECTION SALES & SERVICES, INC., Appellant, v. Kevin RENFRO, et al., Appellee.

No. 13-82-234-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas,

Corpus Christi.

June 23, 1983.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 8, 1983.

Second Rehearing Denied Sept. 15, 1983.

Andrew J. Lehrman, Sorrell, Anderson & Sorrell, Corpus Christi, for appellant.

Ron Barroso, Corpus Christi, for appellee.

Before NYE, C.J., and UTTER and GONZALEZ, JJ.

OPINION

GONZALEZ, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment denying a permanent injunction and damages based on a violation of a noncompetition agreement. Appellant, Diesel Injection Sales & Service, Inc. (Diesel), brought suit against appellees, Kevin Renfro, John Way, Hector Gonzalez and Steve Hudson for breach of their employment contracts. Diesel also sought damages against Schwing Diesel Company (Schwing) for intentional interference with contractual relationships and slander. After a bench trial, the trial court entered a take nothing judgment for plaintiff. We affirm.

This case has been before us on two prior occasions on appeal from denials of temporary injunctions. Diesel Injection Sales and Service, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 631 S.W.2d 193 (Tex.Civ.App.--Corpus Christi 1982, no writ), and Diesel Injection Sales and Service, Inc. v. Renfro, 619 S.W.2d 20 (Tex.Civ.App.--Corpus Christi 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.). We affirmed the trial court's denial of a temporary injunction against the defendants in both cases.

FACTS

Diesel and Schwing are in the specialized business of diesel engine repair as well as sales of diesel engine parts. They are also in direct competition with each other in Nueces County. Though appellees Renfro, Gonzalez, Way and Hudson signed Employment Agreements with Diesel which contained covenants not to engage in the diesel fuel injection business for a period of two years following their termination of employment, they left Diesel to work for Schwing. ¹ Appellees were untrained when they first went to work for Diesel. They received on the job training and also attended various field schools provided by the diesel manufacturers at the expense of Diesel. Nonetheless, they were still uncertified "bench" mechanics primarily engaged in the repairing and overhauling of diesel engines which included diesel fuel injection systems.

Diesel brought suit to enforce the non-competition covenants, seeking an injunction and damages against appellees. The petition alleged, in part, that Renfro had access to various trade secrets, customer list and familiarity with methods, procedures and techniques used by Diesel, and due to Diesel having trained appellees and due to the highly competitive nature of the business, an injunction was necessary to protect Diesel's business and goodwill. The petition also alleged that Schwing intentionally interfered with the contractual relationships between Diesel and its employees and that Schwing had slandered Diesel. As to these allegations, Diesel prayed for exemplary damages. The trial court denied all relief sought and filed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Some of the findings of fact are:

"17. The Defendants Renfro, Way, Gonzales and Hudson are mechanics who had a minimum of contact and exposure to customers of Plaintiff; the nature of the work performed by the Defendants Renfro, Gonzales, Way and Hudson minimized said contract and exposure.

18. The Defendants Renfro, Gonzales, Way or Hudson, in their capacity with both Plaintiff and Defendant Schwing, were not salesmen, did not call on customers nor were they in any significant manner involved with customers.

19. The methods used by Defendants Renfro, Gonzales, Way and Hudson in their work with Plaintiff did not involve trade secrets.

20. No trade secrets or secret techniques exist in the diesel pump repair business that plaintiff and Defendants are both involved in.

21. The methods used by both Defendants and Plaintiff to repair diesel pumps were matters of general knowledge, generally available in the diesel repair business.

22. The Defendants Renfro, Gonzales, Way, and Hudson did not divert any customers from the Plaintiff when they left Plaintiff's employment and began working for Defendant Schwing.

23. The Defendant Schwing did not acquire any new work techniques, customers or customer contacts as a result of his (sic) employment of the Defendant Renfro.

24. The Plaintiff did not lose any customers or business as a direct result of Defendant Renfro's employment with Defendant Schwing.

25. The Defendants Renfro, Gonzales, Way and Hudson acted on their own initiative in seeking employment at Schwing Diesel Co., Inc.

26. When Defendants Renfro, Gonzales, Way and Hudson went to work for Defendant Schwing, they did not take with them Plaintiff's customers, customer lists, pricing list, nor any other such knowledge that Schwing did not already have."

Some of the conclusions of law are:

"1. The covenant not to compete used by Plaintiff in his employment contracts with Defendants Renfro, Gonzales, Way and Hudson was not reasonably incident and essential to the protection of Plaintiff's business or goodwill and the employment of said Defendants by Defendant Schwing did not pose a threat to Plaintiff nor afford a basis of injunctive relief.

2. The covenant not to compete was in restraint of trade and was unreasonable as it was greater than required for the protection of Plaintiff's business and goodwill.

4. Plaintiff failed to prove any present damages or the likelihood of any impending irreparable injuries as a proximate cause of Defendant Renfro, Gonzales, Way or Hudson's employment with Defendant Schwing.

7. The injunction is not necessary to protect the Plaintiff's business or goodwill.

11. There was no evidence to conclusively establish that any decline of Plaintiff's business could be proximately attributable to the hiring of Defendants Renfro, Gonzales, Way and Hudson by Schwing."

In forty-seven points of error, appellant attacks the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment.

ISSUES

The main issues in this appeal are: 1) the enforceability of the restrictive covenant; and 2) whether the record supports a judgment on the theory of interference with contractual relations and slander.

Prior to a discussion of the issues and the evidence, it is necessary to keep in mind the distinction between the standard of appellate review of a temporary injunction and a permanent injunction. In temporary injunction cases, the only question presented is whether the trial court abused its discretion in issuing or refusing the injunction. Sun Oil Co. v. Whitaker, 424 S.W.2d 216, 218 (Tex.1968); Diesel Injection Sales & Service v. Renfro, supra. This is true because a temporary injunction is issued to preserve the status quo in regard to the matter in controversy or to prevent irreparable injury to the applicant pending final determination of the case on the merits. The temporary injunction hearing is not a substitute for, nor does it serve the same purpose as a hearing on the merits. Electronic Data Systems Corp. v. Powell, 524 S.W.2d 393 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1975 writ ref'd n.r.e.). See Southwest Weather Research, Inc. v. Jones, 160 Tex. 104, 327 S.W.2d 417, 421 (1959).

In reviewing the ruling of a trial court on a permanent injunction, we are not bound by the familiar test of whether the trial court abused its discretion.

[A]s an appellate court in equity, we must review the contract in question together with all of the evidence to ascertain whether or not the ruling of the trial judge was correct as in any other appellate review ... although the trial court's fact findings are subject to review only for legal and factual insufficiency of evidence, the court's construction of restrictive covenants and its determination of the proper remedy for breach of such covenants are matters of law for our decision. Electronic Data Systems Corp. v. Powell, supra, 524 S.W.2d at 395.

RESTRICTIVE COVENANT

The law in Texas governing restrictive covenants in employment contracts was established by the Supreme Court in Weatherford Oil Tool Company v. Campbell, 161 Tex. 310, 340 S.W.2d 950, 951 (1960):

"An agreement on the part of an employee not to compete with his employer after termination of the employment is in restraint of trade and will not be enforced in accordance with its terms unless the same are reasonable. Where the public interest is not directly involved, the test usually stated for determining the validity of the covenant as written is whether it imposes upon the employee any greater restraint than is reasonably necessary to protect the business and good will of the employer." 340 S.W.2d at 951. See also Matlock v. Data Processing Sec., Inc., 618 S.W.2d 327 (Tex.1981).

Such covenants will not be declared wholly void because they are unreasonable as to time, or as to the extent of territory covered, or unreasonable as to both time and territory. Instead, a court of equity will enforce the contract by granting an injunction restraining competition for a time and within an area that is reasonable under the circumstances. Justin Belt Co., Inc. v. Yost, 502 S.W.2d 681, 685 (Tex.1973). In determining what is a reasonable restraint under the circumstances, the courts will ordinarily consider the question as one of law. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. v. Wilson, 501 S.W.2d 408, 411 (Tex.Civ.App.--Tyler 1973, writ dism'd); Chenault v. Otis Engineering Corp., 423 S.W.2d 377, 384 (Tex.Civ.App.--Corpus Christi 1967, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

With the above standards in mind, a review of the evidence shows that this is not a case where the terminating employees had extended contact with the public, nor did the employees go out and solicit customers of their former employer, nor did they take trade secrets from their employer and use them in direct competition. (In fact, no such trade secrets existed.) Nor is this a case where the employees possessed unique or extraordinary...