Pestco, Inc. and Surco Products, Inc. v. Assoicated Products, Inc., et al.

1 Associated Products, Inc. (API), API president Harlan Simons III and
chemist Mark Funderlich appeal from judgment entered against them on
January 21, 2003 in the amount of $25,000 in punitive damages and $1.00
compensatory damages. They further appeal the Order granting appellees
permanent injunctive relief and enjoining appellants from future trespass
upon and/or misappropriation of appellee's bills of lading, packing
documents, invoices, other shipping documents and shipped products.
Judgment was entered after the court denied appellants' motion for post

J.
A03044/05

- 2 -

trial relief following a non-jury verdict in favor of appellee Pestco, Inc.1

After
careful review and consideration, we affirm in part and vacate in part.

2 The trial court set forth the relevant facts as follows:
Plaintiff Pestco, its division Air-Scent, and its
sister company Surco are involved in the business
of manufacturing and selling deodorizing air
fresheners and accessories to companies that install
the products in public restrooms. Plaintiff
companies are owned by Arnold Zlotnick.
Defendant Associated Products, Inc. also sold
restroom deodorizers and air fresheners.
Defendant Ralph Simons is President of Associated
Products. Defendant Harlan Simons, III was just
below Ralph Simons in the company hierarchy.
Defendant Mark Funderlich worked for Associated
Products as a chemist.

Both Pestco and Associated Products
employed Defendant Watkins Motor Lines, Inc.
trucks to deliver shipments from both companies to
their customers. Defendant William Coates was
employed by Watkins as a truck driver. For
shipping, the boxes of product are loaded by the
selling company on pallets and bound by clear
shrink wrap. On several occasions, with regard to
the Associated Product's shipments, both Marc
Funderlich and Harlan Simons III assisted the truck
driver in loading the boxes on the truck, as did
several Pestco employees with respect to Pestco's
shipments.

Typically, each truck shipment contained a
"bill of lading" which included certain information
such as the shipping party, the number of cartons,
customer's name, customer's address, sometimes
the customer's phone number, quantities and types
of product being shipped. [Trial Transcript,
2/15/01, p. 158-159, testimony of Arnold Zlotnik].

A domestic shipment contains, in addition to the bill

1 Appellee Surco, Inc., Pestco's sister company, was removed as a party to
this action pursuant to a December 23, 2002 clarifying Order. Record, No.
118.

J. A03044/05

- 3 -

of lading, a packing slip and a material safety data
sheet (MSDS).

In addition, Air Scent also shipped its products
internationally to a company known as Naturex
located in Canada. Plaintiffs used the trucking
company, JAGA, in connection with the shipments.

An international shipment contains all of the above
documents, as well as a customs invoice, customs
papers, and a certificate of origin.

Following an unusual anonymous phone call to
its offices and the return of some damaged
shipments, Pestco undertook an investigation.

Pestco concluded that Defendant Coates had
revealed confidential information from certain bills
of lading to principals and employees at Associated
Products, a primary competitor. At trial, Defendant
Coates testified that, on five to seven separate
occasions, over a period of one and a half to two
and a half years, he would show the bills of lading
for Pestco/Air-Scent/Surco products to Defendant
Mark Funderlich. [Trial Transcript, 2/13/01, pp.
335-36] and once or twice to Defendant Harlan
Simons. Harlan Simons testified that he twice
looked at a Pestco bill of lading shown to him by Mr.
Coates. [Trial Transcript, 2/20, pp. 499-500].

Defendant Mark Funderlich testified that he was
shown such bills of lading on three occasions and
that he showed them to Harlan Simons. [Trial
Transcript, 2/15/01, p. 17]. Other witnesses tend
to corroborate, either directly or through
circumstantial evidence, that Mr. Coates showed the
bill(s) of lading to Associated Products's [sic]
employees on at least one occasion. There is some
small discrepancy among various witnesses for both
parties as to the number of times the bills of lading
were shown and to which individuals, but it is not a
significant enough variation to have any bearing on
the outcome of this case.

With regard to Naturex, Brian Kozera, a
former employee of Associated Products, testified
for Plaintiffs that Mark Funderlich removed a
packing list from an Air-Scent shipment and a quart
bottle from one of the shipments.

J. A03044/05

- 4 -

Trial Court Opinion, Penkower, J., 6/30/04, at 1-3.
3 On November 20, 1997, appellees filed a complaint and motion for
special and/or preliminary injunction against appellants API, Harlan Simons
III, Mark Funderlich, Ralph Jackson Simons, Watkins Motor Lines and its
driver, William Coates. Record, No. 1. The complaint asserted claims for:
(1) misappropriation of trade secrets and confidential information; (2)
trespass to personal property; (3) conversion; (4) negligence; and (5)
violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO),
18 U.S.C.A. § 1964. Id. The action subsequently was removed to the
United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, and
following a hearing, appellees' request for a preliminary injunction was
granted. The District Court then dismissed appellees' RICO claim, and
remanded the case to the Court of Common Pleas.

4 A non-jury trial was held between February 13, 2001 and March 7,
2001, at which time non-suit was granted as to all claims against Ralph
Jackson Simons. Record, Nos. 80-87. On June 7, 2001, the court entered a
verdict in favor of appellees, awarding $1.00 compensatory damages against
API, Simons, Funderlich, and Coates, and $25,000 punitive damages against
API only. Record, No. 93. Additionally, the court granted injunctive relief
against API, Simons, and Funderlich in a form to be determined later. Id.

Thereafter, on June 18, 2001, appellants filed a motion for post trial relief.

J. A03044/05

- 5 -

Record, No. 95. On December 13, 2001, the court issued a permanent
injunction, which provided:

1. Insofar as the Defendants, Associated
Products, Inc., Harlan Simons III and Mark
Funderlich, learn, realize, or otherwise acquire
information that they are in possession of any
of the items listed in the preliminary injunction
issued by the Honorable Donetta W. Ambrose
on February 12, 1998 in Civil Action 97-02137,
U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, the Defendants shall
immediately return those items to the
Plaintiffs.

2. The Defendants, Associated Products, Inc.,
Harlan Simons III and Mark Funderlich, are
now and forever enjoined from future trespass
upon and/or misappropriation of the Plaintiffs'
bills of lading, packing documents, invoices,
other shipping documents and shipped
product. Said Defendants are further enjoined
from improperly accessing said items, including
the packaging and labeling thereof, for the
purpose of obtaining information concerning
the Plaintiffs' products, shipments or
customers.

Permanent Injunction, 12/13/01, at 1; Record, No. 98.

5 On June 27, 2002, the court issued a one-paragraph Adjudication
which provided further clarification for its June 7, 2001 and December 14,
2001 Orders.

Defendant Associated Products, Inc., through
its employees defendants Harlan Simons III and
Mark Funderlich, on repeated occasions committed
trespass upon chattels of, and improperly acquired
confidential business information and/or trade
secrets belonging to, Plaintiff Pestco, Inc., a major
competitor of Associated Products, Inc. Plaintiff does

J. A03044/05

- 6 -

not have an adequate remedy at law, inasmuch as
the qualification of economic damages is
problematic. The proven conduct of the defendants
and the risk of that conduct being repeated warrant
the granting of injunctive relief.

Adjudication, 6/27/02, at 1; Record, No. 101.

6 Thereafter, on December 23, 2002, the court denied appellants'
motion for post-trial relief and issued the following ruling and clarification:

1. The non-jury verdict entered on June 7, 2001 is
clarified and amended to read, in part, as follows:

Compensatory Damages

With respect to Count II, Misappropriation of
Trade Secrets and Confidential Information, and
Count III, Trespass to Personal Property; for
Plaintiff Pestco, Inc. only, and against Defendants
Associated Products, Inc., Harlan Simons III,
Mark Funderlich and William Coates, in the
amount of one ($1.00) dollar.

Punitive Damages

For Plaintiff Pestco, Inc. only and against
Defendant Associated Products, Inc. only, in the
amount of twenty-five thousand ($25,000.00)
dollars."

2. The Permanent Injunction entered on December
13, 2001 is corrected and amended as follows:

a. The reference to the federal court proceedings
in paragraph 1 shall read "Civil Action 97-
02317."

b. The reference to Plaintiff in sentence 1 of
paragraph 2 shall mean Plaintiff Pestco, Inc.
only.

c. The second sentence of paragraph 2 is deleted.

J. A03044/05

- 7 -

3. In all other respects the Motion is denied.

Trial Court Order, 12/23/02, at 1-2; Record, No. 118. Judgment was
entered and this timely appeal followed. Record, No. 121.

7 Appellants raise six issues for our review:

1. Did Pestco establish the tort of misappropriation
of trade secrets with respect to certain information
on a bill of lading used to ship its goods in
commerce?

2. Did the Chancellor err in predicating liability
based on Restatement (Torts) §759?

3. Did Pestco establish trespass to chattels based on
intangible information on a bill of lading?

4. Can punitive damages be awarded in the absence
of any evidence of outrageous conduct and based on
the status of the principal parties as business
competitors?

5. Was the award of punitive damages in an amount
25,000 times the nominal compensatory damages
unreasonable and otherwise impermissibly
disproportionate to the amount of damages as to
violate Due Process?

6. Did the Chancellor err in granting permanent
injunctive relief?

Appellants' brief at 3. For the purposes of our review, appellants' claims
are addressed in a slightly different order than presented in their brief.

8 Appellants first argue "Pestco failed to establish the elements of a
misappropriation of trade secrets." Appellants' brief at 14. Pennsylvania
courts have generally accepted §757 of the Restatement (2nd) of Torts as the

J. A03044/05

- 8 -

basic outline for our trade secrets law. Den-Tal-Ez, Inc. v. Siemens
Capital Corp., 566 A.2d 1214 (Pa. Super. 1989). In pertinent part, §757
provides:

One who discloses or uses another's trade secret,
without a privilege to do so, is liable to the other if

(a) he discovered the secret by improper means, or

(b) his disclosure or use constitutes a breach of
confidence reposed in him by the other in disclosing
the secret to him….

Rest. 2d. Torts §757, Liability For Disclosure Or Use Of Another's Trade
Secret-- General Principle, (a), (b).

9 Appellants first argue neither the information listed on Pestco's bill of
lading, nor any of the information relating to Naturex constitutes a trade
secret. Appellants' brief at 16, 25. After careful review, we agree. Under
§757, a trade secret is defined as "any formula, pattern, device or
compilation of information which is used in one's business, and which gives
him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not
know or use it." Den-Tal-Ez, Inc., supra at 1228, quoting Rest. 2d. Torts
§757, comment b. As we explained in O.D. Anderson, Inc. v. Cricks, 815
A.2d 1063 (Pa. Super. 2003):

The crucial indicia for determining whether certain
information constitutes a trade secret are substantial
secrecy and competitive value to the owner. It is not
the character of the information that is relevant
under Pennsylvania law. Rather, the determination

J. A03044/05

- 9 -

of whether the information is a trade secret must be
made on a case-by-case basis.

Id. at 1070-1071 (citations and internal quotations omitted).

10 The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania has set forth a number of factors that are helpful in analyzing
whether given information constitutes a trade secret, including:

(1) the extent to which the information is
known outside of the owner's business; (2) the
extent to which it is known by employees and others
involved in the owner's business; (3) the extent of
measures taken by the owner to guard the secrecy of
the information; (4) the amount of effort or money
expended by the owner in developing the information
and (6) the ease or difficulty with which the
information could be properly acquired or duplicated
by others.

Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Stella, 994 F.Supp. 318, 323 n.2 (E.D.
Pa. 1998) (citations omitted). Here, it is undisputed that William Coates
showed various Pestco bills of lading to API personnel on five to seven
separate occasions over a period of 1½ years. Those bills of lading
contained the name of the shipper, the name and address of the customer
to whom the goods were being shipped, the number of cartons, a generic
classification of the goods, and the total weight of the shipment.

Additionally, Pestco's domestic shipments contained a material safety data
sheet (MSDS) and a packing slip. Pestco's international bills of lading also
contained the customer's phone number and the name of a broker, and were
often shipped with a customs invoice, certificate of origin, and sometimes an

J. A03044/05

- 10 -

MSDS. N.T., 2/13/01, at 48-53; N.T., 2/15/01, at 131-132, 173-174; N.T.,
2/20-22/01, at 36, 78, 312-336; and N.T., 3/6-7/01, at 48.

11 Under Pennsylvania law, customer lists are generally afforded trade
secret status. See A.M. Skier Agency, Inc. v. Gold, 747 A.2d 936 (Pa.
Super. 2000) (trial court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary
injunction for misappropriation of trade secrets where an employee stole a
directory listing client names and contact information); Morgan's Home
Equip. Corp. v. Martucci, 390 Pa. 618, 136 A.2d 838 (1957) (lists of
confidential and valuable customer data constitute trade secrets). Relying
on Morgan's Home, the trial court concluded that Pestco's bills of lading
were analogous to a customer list and the information on them "could be
highly valuable and potentially damaging in the hands of a competitor" and
"constitute a trade secret." Trial Court Opinion at 8-9. After careful
consideration, we cannot reasonably agree.

12 At trial, Coates testified he did not show appellants any of the other
documents sent with the Pestco shipments, only their bills of lading. N.T.,
2/20-22/01, at 312. Unlike Morgan's Home, the information contained on
Pestco's bills of lading was rather general in nature, readily available to API,
and easily obtainable from other sources; it was not the type of
"data…entitled to protection," as was found by the trial court. See Trial
Court Opinion at 9, quoting Morgan's Home Equip. Corp., supra at 625,
136 A.2d at 843. At the time of the alleged incident, Pestco had

J. A03044/05

- 11 -

approximately 1,500 customers, many of whom were ascertainable from
industry-wide mailing lists purchased by both API and Pestco or members of
industry trade groups Swisher International and Fikes. N.T., 2/14/01, at 13;
N.T., 2/20-22/01, at 435-436. Also, API and Pestco easily can ascertain
each other's customers by simply visiting public restrooms or reviewing the
names of potential customers in a phone book's yellow pages. N.T.,
2/13/01, at 62-63; N.T., 2/20-22/01, at 428-429. Moreover, the bills of
lading in question did not contain specific product description or pricing
information, and a number of Pestco employees testified that they could not
identify what specific products were being shipped by simply looking at the
bills of lading. N.T., 2/14-15/01, at 131-132, 144-147, 158-161; N.T.,
2/20-22/01, at 99; N.T., 2/26/01, at 194-195, 207, 220-222, 250.

13 It is well-settled that "[e]quity will not protect mere names and
addresses easily ascertainable by observation or reference to directories."
Renee Beauty Salons, Inc. v. Blose-Venable, 652 A.2d 1345, 1349 (Pa.
Super. 1995) (citations omitted). "[F]or customer information to be
protectible it must be a particular secret of the business…" Van Products
Co. v. General Welding & Fabricating Co., 419 Pa. 248, 263, 213 A.2d
769, 777 (1965) (emphasis added). While not binding upon this Court, we
find the conclusions of the Eastern District Court helpful:

Customer lists and confidential business information,
however, cannot be trade secrets if they are easily or
readily obtained, without great difficulty through
some independent source other than the trade secret

J. A03044/05

- 12 -

holder and thus courts have denied protection to
customer lists which are easily generated from trade
journals, ordinary telephone listings, or an
employee's general knowledge of who, in an
established industry, is a potential customer for a
given product.

Prudential Ins. Co, supra at 323 n.2 (citations omitted).

14 The trial court also relied on the testimony of Brian Kozera, a former
API employee, to support its finding that appellants are liable for
misappropriation of trade secrets. Trial Court Opinion at 3. Appellants aver
the court's "decision to accept Mr. Kozera's testimony was against the
weight of the evidence." Appellants' brief at 26. We agree.
15 "[T]his Court will respect a trial court's findings with regard to the
weight of the evidence unless it can be shown that the lower court's
determination was manifestly erroneous, arbitrary and capricious or
flagrantly contrary to the evidence." Cummins v. Atlas R.R. Const. Co.,
814 A.2d 742, 745 (Pa. Super. 2002) (citation omitted). Brian Kozera is a
former forklift driver for API who admittedly charged personal items on API's
business account after quitting. N.T., 2/13/01, at 118-120. At trial, Kozera
testified that he witnessed appellant Funderlich remove a bottle from one of
Pestco/Air Scent's boxes addressed to Naturex, take it back toward his lab,
and later return it. Id. at 76-77. Kozera also testified he removed shipping
documents from Air Scent's pallet on more than one occasion at the request
of Funderlich. Id. at 74-76. This testimony is both inaccurate and
contradictory to the other testimony presented at trial. Kozera originally

J. A03044/05

- 13 -

testified he removed Air Scent's pallets from the truck prior to Funderlich's
intrusion, but later contradicted himself and said the pallets remained on the
truck. Id. at 76, 105-109. Kozera further testified that the box from which
Funderlich allegedly removed the bottle was folded over. Id. at 71-72, 112-
114. Pestco employee Michelle Lara, however, testified that boxes were
always sealed prior to shipment, and Naturex owner Roy confirmed he didn't
recall receiving any boxes that were unsealed or merely folded over. N.T.,
2/14-15/01, at 185; Deposition of Jean Roy, 2/3/01, at 22; Record, No. 85.
Furthermore, Funderlich denied that any such wrongdoing occurred. N.T.,
2/20-22/01, at 385-388. Based on the foregoing, we therefore find no basis
for the trial court's conclusion that appellants misappropriated appellees'
trade secrets.

16 Appellants also argue the court erred in concluding that they
committed trespass to chattels with respect to Pestco's bills of lading.
Appellants' brief at 33. Specifically, appellants claim "the tort of trespass to
chattels cannot be predicated on the intangible information contained in a
bill of lading." Id. We agree.

17 The tort of trespass to chattels, to the extent it still exists in
Pennsylvania, is governed by Restatement (2nd) of Torts §217, Ways Of
Committing Trespass To Chattel, which provides:

A trespass to a chattel may be committed by
intentionally

(a) dispossessing another of the chattel, or

J. A03044/05

- 14 -

(b) using or intermeddling with a chattel in the
possession of another.

Id. Pennsylvania courts have long-recognized that the tort of trespass to
chattel must be based upon some tangible form of property. See Mackay
v. Benjamin Franklin R. & H. Co., 135 A. 613, 614 (1927). In Northcraft
v. Edward C. Michener Associates, Inc., 466 A.2d 620 (Pa. Super. 1983),
we concluded:

A tort based on interference with an individual's
property right in a chattel, regardless of the nature
of the chattel, presupposes the existence of that
chattel. The action must therefore be limited to
chattels of an existing nature; i.e. those whose
existence is ascertainable by some concrete proof.

Id. at 628.

18 Here, the property in question was primarily intangible information
contained on Pestco's bills of lading, namely the identity of the customer and
a general classification of the goods being shipped. The trial court concluded
that in the absence of "any authority that states, as a matter of law, that
documents or information found on documents, can never be the subject of
an action for trespass to chattels," liability for trespass to chattels with
respect to Pestco's bills of lading must stand. Trial Court Opinion at 12-13.

In light of our holdings in Mackay and Northcraft, we wholly reject the
court's conclusions.

19 Having found appellants not liable under §§ 757 and 217, we
nonetheless agree with the court that Restatement of Torts §759, Procuring

J. A03044/05

- 15 -

Information By Improper Means, provides appellees with an alternative
theory of recovery. Trial Court Opinion at 11-12. Accordingly, we reject
appellants' claim of trial court error. See Appellants' brief at 31. In relevant
part, §759 provides:

One who, for the purpose of advancing a rival
business interest, procures by improper means
information about another's business is liable to the
other for the harm caused by his possession,
disclosure or use of the information.
Id. Moreover, the comments to §759 clearly indicate "information that is
procured under this section need not rise to the level of a trade secret. It
only need be confidential business information." Den-Tal-Ez, Inc., supra at
1231, citing Rest. 2d. Torts §759, comment b. It is undisputed that William
Coates improperly showed appellants bills of lading belonging to Pestco,
their primary competitor. At trial, a number of API employees testified as to
the confidential nature of information contained on a bill of lading. See
N.T., 2/13/01, at 13, 36, 146-147, 154, 163; N.T., 2/15/01, at 83.
Specifically, Ralph Simons admitted he considers information on a bill of
lading confidential, and would object to someone turning over information
from API's bills of lading to a competitor. N.T., 2/13/01, at 36. Similarly,
Mark Funderlich admitted that client identity is "confidential information" and
that he would never give a competitor such information. Id. at 13.

Accordingly, the imposition of liability under §759 was appropriate. See
Den-Tal-Ez, supra.

J. A03044/05

- 16 -

20 Appellants next contend their conduct was not of such an outrageous
nature to justify the imposition of punitive damages against API. Appellants'
brief at 38. We agree.

21 Our standard of review in assessing an award of punitive damages is
well-settled.

[P]unitive damages will lie only in cases of
outrageous behavior, where defendant's egregious
conduct shows either an evil motive or reckless
indifference to the rights of others. Punitive
damages are appropriate when an individual's
actions are of such an outrageous nature as to
demonstrate intentional, willful, wanton, or reckless
conduct.

Slappo v. J's Development Associates, Inc., 791 A.2d 409, 417 (Pa.
Super. 2002) (citations omitted). "The determination of whether a person's
actions arise to outrageous conduct lies within the sound discretion of the
fact-finder and will not be disturbed by an appellate court so long as that
discretion has not been abused. Likewise, in equity matters, our standard of
review…is limited to a determination of whether the Chancellor committed an
error of law or abused his discretion." SHV Coal, Inc. v. Continental
Grain Co., 526 Pa. 489, 495-496, 587 A.2d 702, 705 (1991) (citation
omitted).

22 Here, the trial court awarded appellees $25,000 in punitive damages,
in part, on the basis appellants misappropriated appellee's trade secrets in
violation of §757 of the Restatement of (2nd) of Torts. See Trial Court
Opinion at 16. This Court having concluded the information contained on

J. A03044/05

- 17 -

Pestco's bills of ladings did not constitute a trade secret, we find the court's
imposition of punitive damages inappropriate. Moreover, we agree with
appellants the $25,000 punitive damages award "was impermissibly
disproportionate" to the $1.00 compensatory damage award, "not
reasonably related to the nature of the conduct and violative of due
process." Appellants' brief at 44, relying on State Farm v. Campbell, 538
U.S. 408, 155 L.Ed.2d 585 (2003).

23 In State Farm, the United States Supreme Court was faced with
determining whether a $145 million punitive damages award was excessive
and disproportionate to the wrong committed. Noting that punitive damages
are aimed at deterrence and retribution, the Court nonetheless found the
award constituted an unconstitutional deprivation of the insurer's property,
and further cautioned that there are procedural and substantive
constitutional limitations on punitive damage awards and that the due
process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the imposition of
grossly excessive or arbitrary punishments. Id. at 416-418, 155 L.Ed.2d. at
599-600.

24 This Court recently analyzed State Farm in Hollock v. Erie Ins.
Exchange, 842 A.2d 409, 420 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en banc), and cited State
Farm for the proposition that "although states possess discretion over the
imposition of punitive damages, there are procedural and substantive
constitutional limitations on these awards." Id. Further, we noted that

J. A03044/05

- 18 -

under Pennsylvania law the "size of a punitive damages award must be
reasonably related to the State's interest in punishing and deterring the
particular behavior of the defendant and not the product of arbitrariness or
unfettered discretion." Id. at 419 (citation omitted). The Hollock court
reiterated three guideposts an appellate court should consider in determining
whether an award of punitive damages violates due process:

(1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's
misconduct; (2) the disparity between the actual or
potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the
punitive damages award; and (3) the difference
between the punitive damages awarded by the jury
and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in
comparable cases.

Id. at 420, citing State Farm, supra at 418, 155 L.Ed.2d. at 601.

25 In this case the trial court awarded appellees punitive damages in an
amount 25,000 times the compensatory damage award of $1.00. See Trial
Court Order, 12/23/02, at 1-2; Record, No. 118. In reviewing such an
award, we are mindful of the fact "the United States Supreme Court has
expressly rejected the assertion that a punitive damages award must bear a
certain proportionality to the amount of compensatory damages." Hollock,
supra at 421 (citation omitted). Nonetheless, where "an amount of an
award of punitive damages… shock's the Court's sense of conscience," the
award cannot stand. Reading Radio, Inc. v. Fink, 833 A.2d 199, 214 (Pa.
Super. 2003). Given the gross disparity between the nature of the harm
suffered by appellees and the punitive damages awarded, we find this award

J. A03044/05

- 19 -

does shock our conscience. Accordingly, we are obliged to vacate the
$25,000 judgment for punitive damages.

26 Lastly, appellants argue that "a permanent injunction was not
warranted." Appellants' brief at 46. Our standard of review in addressing
whether a trial court erred in granting a permanent injunction is well-settled.

[I]n order to establish a claim for a permanent
injunction, the party must establish his or her clear
right to relief. However, unlike a claim for a
preliminary injunction, the party need not establish
either irreparable harm or immediate relief and a
court may issue a final injunction if such relief is
necessary to prevent a legal wrong for which there is
no adequate redress at law. Additionally, when
reviewing the grant or denial of a final or permanent
injunction, an appellate court's review is limited to
determining whether the trial court committed an
error of law.

Buffalo Township v. Jones, 571 Pa. 637, 644, 813 A.2d 659, 663-
664 (2002) (citations and internal quotations omitted). Injunctive relief is
warranted in cases where the harm is "not subject to exact valuation and
compensation through damage awards." Den-Tal-Ez, Inc., supra at 1233.
Additionally, where a defendant improperly obtains a plaintiff's confidential
information, as is the case here, the court is justified in granting an
injunction to prevent future use of the information and to deter repetition of
the conduct. Id.; Rest. 2d. Torts §757. We reiterate the well-reasoned
conclusions of the trial court:

Both parties are fierce competitors and are involved
in producing the same products. Both parties use or
have used the same trucking company and the same

J. A03044/05

- 20 -

truck driver to ship their products. The truck driver
has been implicated and has admitted to some
involvement in the revealing of the information on
the bills of lading to Defendants. Compensatory
damages only in the amount of $1.00 have been
awarded by the court because of the speculative,
non-provable nature of any resulting damages.
However, given past history, current litigation, and
the competitive nature of the business, the Court is
mindful of the possibility of future violation.
Furthermore, no adequate remedy at law exists due
to the speculative nature of damages.

Trial Court Opinion at 14-15. Accordingly, we reject appellants' claim of trial
court error in this regard and conclude that permanent injunctive relief is
appropriate.

27 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment for compensatory
damages in the amount of $1.00, vacate the judgment of punitive damages
in the amount of $25,000 and affirm the permanent injunction.

28 Judgment affirmed in part and vacated in part.

29 Jurisdiction relinquished.

¶28 Judgment affirmed in part and vacated in part.

¶29 Jurisdiction relinquished.