Pensacola Motor Sales, Inc. v. Daphne Auto., LLC
Decision Date | 06 December 2013 |
Docket Number | 1110857.,1110840 |
Citation | 155 So.3d 930 |
Parties | PENSACOLA MOTOR SALES, INC., d/b/a Bob Tyler Toyota v. DAPHNE AUTOMOTIVE, LLC, d/b/a Eastern Shore Toyota, and Shawn Esfahani. Fred Keener v. Daphne Automotive, LLC, d/b/a Eastern Shore Toyota, and Shawn Esfahani. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
John Martin Galese and Jeffrey L. Ingram of Galese & Ingram, P.C., Birmingham, for appellant Pensacola Motor Sales, Inc., d/b/a Bob Tyler Toyota.
Jeffrey L. Luther and L. Robert Shreve of Luther, Collier, Hodges & Cash, LLP, Mobile, for appellant Fred Keener.
David A. McDonald and Vincent F. Kilborn III of Kilborn, Roebuck & McDonald, Mobile, for appellees.
In these consolidated appeals, Pensacola Motor Sales, Inc., d/b/a Bob Tyler Toyota (“BTT”), one of two named defendants below, appeals in case no. 1110840 from a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of Daphne Automotive, LLC, d/b/a Eastern Shore Toyota (“EST”), and Shawn Esfahani, the plaintiffs below, on the plaintiffs' claims seeking damages for slander. In case no. 1110857, Fred Keener, an employee of BTT and a codefendant, similarly appeals from the judgment against him and in favor of EST and Esfahani.
In December 2007, Esfahani, who was born in Iran but who is a United States citizen, opened EST, an automobile dealership selling Toyota vehicles, in Daphne. Esfahani serves as both owner and manager of EST. EST is a direct competitor of BTT, which has, since 1997, operated a Toyota-brand automobile dealership in Pensacola, Florida. Bob Tyler, president and sole owner of BTT, had competed with Esfahani for a new Toyota dealership that was to be opened in Baldwin County. The record suggests a history of “bad blood” between Esfahani and Tyler in that in 2010 they were also involved in federal litigation related to alleged “cybersquatting” by EST based on EST's online advertising practices; EST successfully defended against BTT's claims.
Esfahani ultimately learned of slanderous statements made about him and/or EST by employees of BTT, including, in an apparent effort to discourage potential customers from purchasing from EST, BTT's agents' purportedly informing customers that Esfahani and/or EST “are engaged in illegal activity, are terrorists, or otherwise support terrorist organizations.” More specifically, BTT and its employees purportedly referred to EST as “Middle Eastern Shore [Toyota]” or “Taliban Toyota.”
In January 2010, EST and Esfahani sued BTT and Keener in the Mobile Circuit Court, seeking damages based on claims of slander per se, slander per quod, and intentional interference with business relationships. As a result of the alleged slanderous remarks by the defendants or their agents, Esfahani and EST alleged that they “ha[d] been deprived of public confidence that they had prior to said acts ... and [their] business reputation has been damaged and the business has lost profits and has otherwise been devalued.”
The matter ultimately proceeded to a jury trial, during which, according to the trial court, the evidence demonstrated the following:
In addition, Esfahani and EST offered testimony from an economist who specializes in the automobile industry, Dr. Ernest H. Manuel, Jr., Ph.D., who, by means of a “lost profits analysis,” opined that, as a result of the slanderous comments by the defendants, EST had suffered damage in the form of lost sales totaling approximately $7.1 million. Esfahani testified that, in his estimation, not only was Manuel's estimate of EST's losses conservative, but he had also personally been damaged by BTT's and Keener's conduct in excess of that amount.
At the conclusion of the four-day trial, the jury found for Esfahani and EST against both BTT and Keener on the remaining slander claims.2 Specifically, as to his slander per se charge against both BTT and Keener, the jury...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ala. River Grp., Inc. v. Conecuh Timber, Inc.
...(quoting Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U.S. 1, 18, 111 S.Ct. 1032, 113 L.Ed.2d 1 (1991) ); Pensacola Motor Sales, Inc. v. Daphne Auto., LLC, 155 So.3d 930, 946–47 (Ala. 2013) (quoting Gore for the principle "that exemplary damages must bear a ‘reasonable relationship’ to compens......
-
Thomas v. Heard
...of a defendant's conduct "is the single most important factor in the remittitur analysis." Pensacola Motor Sales, Inc. v. Daphne Auto., LLC, 155 So.3d 930, 949 (Ala. 2013) (citing BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 576, 116 S.Ct. 1589, 134 L.Ed.2d 809 (1996) ). The trial cour......
-
Bednarski v. Johnson
......, M.D., deceased, and Auburn Urgent Care, Inc. v. Cortney Johnson, as administrator of the ... [ State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v.] Campbell , 538. U.S. [408] at ... the remittitur analysis." Pensacola Motor Sales,. Inc. v. Daphne Auto., LLC , ......
-
Spencer v. Remillard
...a specific adverse ruling in order to preserve the issue for appellate review."Page 73 Pensacola Motor Sales, Inc. v. Daphne Auto., LLC, 155 So. 3d 930, 936-37 (Ala. 2013). There is no indication in the record that the trial court's ruling on MIL #26 was absolute or unconditional. Therefore......
-
Post-judgment Review of Punitive Damages
...as if they are all part of a single analysis, and then reached a conclusion. See Pensacola Motor Sales, Inc. v. Daphne Automotive, LLC, 155 So. 3d 930, 944-52 (Ala. 2013); Ross, 67 So. 3d at 41-45; Engineered Cooling Servs., Inc. v. Star Serv., Inc., 108 So. 3d 1022, 1027, 1033-37 (Ala. Civ......
-
Preventing Waiver of Arguments on Appeal
...waived any argument regarding its admissibility."); see also Harwood, at 2-6.41. See Pensacola Motor Sales, Inc. v. Daphne Auto., LLC, 155 So. 3d 930, 937 (Ala. 2013) (holding that a party must offer contested evidence at trial"and obtain a specific adverse ruling in order to preserve the i......