Opinion ID: 1698977
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Conference America's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial

Text: Conference America contends that even if the 1997 agreement was properly assigned to New TCN, Conference America is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law as to the two counts in New TCN's counterclaim that went to the jury: breach of contract and repudiation of contract. Conference America argues that if the 1997 agreement was assigned to New TCN, then New TCN became Conference America's agent and can have no recovery based on the 1997 agreement because New TCN breached the agreement by violating its implicit fiduciary duties [7] to Conference America by 1) soliciting Conference America employees and 2) establishing C3, an entity that competed with Conference America. `The standard of review applicable to a motion for directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict [now referred to as a preverdict and a postverdict motion for a judgment as a matter of law] is identical to the standard used by the trial court in granting or denying the motions initially. Thus, when reviewing the trial court's ruling on either motion, we determine whether there was sufficient evidence to produce a conflict warranting jury consideration. And, like the trial court, we must view any evidence most favorably to the non-movant.' Glenlakes Realty Co. v. Norwood, 721 So.2d 174, 177 (Ala.1998) (quoting Bussey v. John Deere Co., 531 So.2d 860, 863 (Ala.1988)). The issue, therefore, is whether, when viewed in the light most favorable to New TCN, there was sufficient evidence to produce a conflict warranting jury consideration as to whether New TCN was an agent of Conference America, and, if so, whether New TCN breached any implicit fiduciary duties so that New TCN may recover under the 1997 agreement. Whether one is an agent of another `is to be determined by the facts, and not by how the parties may characterize the relationship,' Mardis v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 642 So.2d 701, 705 (Ala.1994) (quoting Butler v. Aetna Fin. Co., 587 So.2d 308, 311 (Ala.1991)), and is generally a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact. Malmberg v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 644 So.2d 888, 890 (Ala.1994). Essentially, Conference America claims that New TCN, as its agent, owed a duty not to compete with Conference America with regard to employees or services. However, New TCN presented evidence indicating 1) that there was no exclusive relationship between New TCN and Conference America that would have made Conference America the sole vendor of choice, 2) that New TCN did not actually solicit employees of Conference America, and 3) that New TCN did not begin competing with Conference America until after Conference America allegedly breached its contractual obligations. After reviewing the record and examining the evidence in the light most favorable to New TCN, as we must, we hold that the evidence raised a conflict sufficient to send this issue to the jury. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying Conference America's motion for judgment as a matter of law regarding New TCN's counterclaims. Additionally, given our disposition of this case, we do not reach Conference America's contention that it was entitled to a new trial based on the claim that the jury's verdict was against the great weight of the evidence.