Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** HI-HO TOWER, INC. v. COM-TRONICS, INC., ET AL. (SC 16227)
McDonald, C. J., and Borden, Palmer, Sullivan and Parker, Js. Argued April 20--officially released December 12, 2000 Counsel

Ralph P. Dupont, with whom was Barbara J. Radlauer, for the appellant (plaintiff). David B. Zabel, with whom, on the brief, was Vincent M. Marino, for the appellees (defendants).
Opinion

BORDEN, J. The plaintiff, Hi-Ho Tower, Inc., appeals1 from the judgment of the trial court, rendered after a jury trial, in favor of the defendants, Com-Tronics, Inc. (Com-Tronics), and its principal officer, John Becker, on the complaint, and for Com-Tronics on the third count of its counterclaim. The plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly: (1) instructed the jury as to the elements of a claim for tortious interference with business expectancies, and denied the plaintiff's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on Com-Tronics' counterclaim for tortious interference; (2) granted the defendants' motion for a directed verdict on the plain-

tiff's claim of breach of fiduciary duty; and (3) instructed the jury that conversion and statutory theft are limited to tangible property and documents evidencing intangible rights. We affirm the judgment. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendants in two counts seeking, on the basis of various legal theories including breach of fiduciary duty, damages for the defendants' alleged unlawful use of the plaintiff's radio and communications tower. Com-Tronics filed a four count counterclaim. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendants on the claim of breach of fiduciary duty. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants on all remaining counts of the complaint, and for Com-Tronics on the third count of its counterclaim, which was based on the theory of tortious interference with business expectancies.2 The trial court rendered judgment on the verdict. The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. The plaintiff, a wholly owned subsidiary of D'Addario Industries, Inc. (D'Addario Industries), is a corporation engaged in the business of owning, operating and maintaining a communications tower and facility in the town of Trumbull. The facility consists of the tower, an equipment building, cable and electrical wiring, and numerous repeaters and antenna combiners3 used in the transmission and reception of radio signals. The plaintiff licenses various entities to use its communications facilities for television, radio and wireless telephone services. The defendants are engaged in the business of selling, servicing and installing two-way radio equipment. In the early 1980s, Becker began to service communications equipment for the plaintiff and various other entities operated by D'Addario Industries. In 1982, Becker contacted F. Francis D'Addario, then president of the plaintiff, and requested permission, which was granted, to install a community repeater at the plaintiff's tower facility for use in Com-Tronics' business.4 In exchange, Becker paid a monthly usage fee of $25.5 Sometime either prior to or during 1989, the parties entered into an oral agreement whereby the defendants would furnish technical assistance and service functions at the tower. It is undisputed that from 1982 through 1992, the defendants installed additional repeaters and antenna combiners on the plaintiff's tower for the defendants' use, licensed their customers to use the repeaters and combiners, and collected license fees for that use. In the plaintiff's equipment building adjacent to the tower, the defendants' customers placed their own equipment, which was subsequently wired to the additional repeaters and combiners that the defendants had installed on the tower. The parties dispute, however, whether the plaintiff was aware of the installation of these additional

items or of the defendants' licensing activities and collection of licensing fees, and whether the defendants had permission from the plaintiff for these activities. The defendants' conduct in placing the additional repeaters and combiners on the plaintiff's tower and in using the tower for their own benefit form the basis for the plaintiff's claim, in its complaint, that the defendants unlawfully used the tower. As part of their business, the defendants provided technical services for both the plaintiff's and the defendants' customers whose equipment was located at the plaintiff's tower facility. This part of Com-Tronics business forms the basis of its counterclaim for tortious interference. In August, 1992, the plaintiff was contacted by the Federal Communications Commission (commission) regarding communications interference with area television and radio reception due to increased use of the tower facility. The plaintiff hired a consultant, Thomas Osenkowsky, to conduct an investigation of the commission's allegations. In preparation for the investigation, the plaintiff asked Becker to compile a list of customers who were utilizing the tower's communications facilities. The list prepared by Becker included Com-Tronics' equipment located at the tower. At the conclusion of the investigation, Osenkowsky determined that the list compiled by Becker accurately reflected all equipment located at the tower. In September, 1992, David D'Addario, the president of D'Addario Industries,6 met with Becker and demanded that the defendants turn over all of the defendants' equipment at the tower to the plaintiff, and reimburse the plaintiff for revenues lost as a result of the defendants' alleged unauthorized use of the plaintiff's tower facility. On September 22, 1992, the plaintiff sent a letter to all tower customers for whom the defendants provided maintenance and repair services, stating that the defendants no longer were associated with or had access to the tower. Additional facts will be provided as necessary. Thereafter, the plaintiff brought this action against the defendants. The first count of the plaintiff's complaint claimed damages based on three theories: (1) breach of fiduciary duty; (2) breach of contract; and (3) common-law conversion and statutory theft. The second count claimed damages under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes

Download Hi-Ho Tower, Inc. v. Con-Tronics, Inc..pdf

Connecticut Law