Patsfield v. UV Logistics, LLC d/b/a United Vision Logistics
May 30, 2019OUTCOME: $530,000
On or about Sept. 28, 2012, plaintiff James Mark Patsfield III, an independent trucking terminal operator in his mid-50s and based in Smithton, Pa., entered into an agreement with United Vision Logist ... ics LLC, a national trucking company serving primarily the oil and gas industry. UV Logistics terminated the agreement on about May 5, 2015. Patsfield sued UV Logistics, which has main offices in Louisiana and Texas, for fraudulent inducement to enter into the contract, fraudulent inducement to remain in the contract, and tortious interference with a contractual or business relationship. Patsfield put on evidence that, under the contract, he engaged numerous independent contractor drivers and made the terminal into a highly profitable enterprise, grossing more than $7 million in 2014 alone. He claimed that, to induce him to enter into the agreement, UV Logistics promised to shut down its nearby company owned terminal and allow the drivers from that terminal to contract with Patsfield. He claimed UV Logistics failed to honor this promise but repeatedly gave him vague assurances to keep him from terminating their agreement. His attorneys argued internal emails at the time showed the company was planning to terminate the contract and that all of the independent-contractor drivers at Patsfield’s terminal would then have no choice but to move to the company-owned terminal, Patsfield argued. In 2015, UV Logistics gave fewer jobs to Patsfield’s terminal and Patsfield started negotiations with another carrier. When UV Logistics found out about the talks, it terminated Patsfield’s contract, causing him to lose his drivers, many of whom signed contracts with UV Logistics, Patsfield argued. Generally, Patsfield’s contract with UV Logistics did not prohibit him from working with other carriers, as long as they were not UV Logistics competitors. Patsfield’s attorneys argued the carrier that Patsfield was negotiating was not a UV Logistics competitor. Most of its customers were commodities manufacturers, they said. Patsfield claimed UV’s intent all along was to let Patsfield collect trucking contacts under its contract, then terminate the contract and take those contacts for itself. The defense denied any wrongful conduct and denied promising to close its terminal or give its drivers to Patsfield. Nothing prohibited UV Logistics from continuing to operate its own terminal even if it took business from Patsfield, the defense argued. The defense also argued the other carrier that Patsfield was negotiating with was a UV Logistics competitor. RESULT: The jury found UV fraudulently induced Patsfield to remain in the contract and that his damages were $450,000, for past lost profits only. The jury did not find wrongful interference with contractual or business relationships or fraudulent inducement for Patsfield to enter into the contract. The total amount of the verdict after fees and interest was over $530,000. It was the SECOND largest verdict in this category for the entire State of Texas in 2019!
