Bullet Express vs New Way Logistics Case

This 2014 case concerned an appearl arising from a trial court’s finding that defendant New Way Logistics was liable to Bullet Express for Tortious interference with a economic advantage.  The trial court's finding was based on defendant's conduct in picking up and refusing to deliver two cargo loads that plaintiff had hired defendant to deliver, which defendant did in an attempt to force plaintiff to pay defendant funds that plaintiff allegedly owed defendant for previous deliveries. This was essentially a case concerning ‘holding freight hostage.’ 

On November 12, 2013, plaintiff and defendant entered into a lease agreement whereby defendant agreed to lease four vans to plaintiff and to provide drivers to transport shipments as dispatched by plaintiff. 

The defendant refused to deliver shipments there were picked up under the request of the plaintiff and held them hostage at a parking lot at their location in Niles Illinois. They demanded $25,5500 for services performed however they had only agreed on $19,019.81 at the time of tendering of services. 

The plaintiff had paid the factoring company involved but later learned that their vendor ‘misplaced the payments’ meaning they had not paid the defendant.  They said they were willing to pay however the defendant ‘commandeered the two shipments.” The cargo vale was $78,000 & $200,000 and the plaintiff was concerned that they would lose their customers if the shipments were not delivered. 

Because of losing the client they sought compensatory damages over $50,000 and punitive damages along with covering the attorney fees and costs. The defendant responded by opening a counter claim and advised they declined to deliver the freight due to breach of contract and that while payment was promised they did not ever actually make the payment.  Defendant also had no written examples where the plaintiff informed them of their client relationships (Bronco & Landstar). 

Defendant's counterclaim, which is not at issue on appeal, alleged that on November 12, 2013, plaintiff and defendant entered into a lease for the transportation of goods in interstate commerce. Defendant alleged that it had "fully performed its obligations under the terms of the Lease and has billed [plaintiff] the sum of $28,598.88." However, "[plaintiff] has failed to pay for the services rendered by [defendant] in material breach of the Lease." Accordingly, the counterclaim sought damages in the amount of $28,598.88. 

The court found that defendant knew of plaintiff's expectancy, finding that "defendant need not have knowledge of the specific details of a plaintiff's respective business relation, and Illinois courts have held it to be sufficient where a defendant had a general knowledge of the plaintiff's business relationships and not knowledge of specific customers or the nature of the relationship." 

The court also found that plaintiff had established by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant intentionally interfered with plaintiff's relationship with Landstar. The court found that "[b]y January 4, 2014 the Defendant threatened to contact the customer for whom the shipments were to be made to let them know why Defendant was refusing to deliver them. And subsequently did just that, telling Landstar through its Agent, Jonathan Hauger that Defendant was refusing to deliver the shipment because it hadn't been paid." 

Finally, the court found that the evidence established that "it was more likely than not  that as a result of the Defendant refusing to deliver the shipments to Landstar and telling Landstar that Plaintiff hadn't paid them that Landstar never did business with Plaintiff again." The court awarded plaintiff lost profits over a two-year period amounting to $45,141.58, based on the two years of records that it had submitted; the court noted that plaintiff had asked for six years of lost profits, based on its six-year history with Landstar, but the court found that there was no documentation as to the earlier four years. 

The court also awarded plaintiff punitive damages in the amount of $22,000, which it noted were appropriate in cases in which the defendant acted willfully or with such gross negligence as to indicate a wanton disregard for the rights of others. With respect to punitive damages, the court found: 

"The evidence established the following: 
 
The Defendant through its agents knew that the principal of the Plaintiff was leaving the country on or about December 24. 
 
Up to that point in time the Defendant also knew it had not provided bills of lading in support of all of its deliveries and that Plaintiff was under an obligation to pay Defendant's Agent, Trans Am, yet demanded direct payment in any event. 
 
Defendant also knew the damages Plaintiff would incur if shipments were delayed, and notwithstanding all of this the Defendant intentionally kept two shipments hostage. 
 
Based on the willful nature of the Defendant's action the Court awards punitive damages in the amount of $22,000. Finding this to be an appropriate award based on all the evidence." 

Bullet Express, Inc. v. New Way Logistics, Inc., 70 N.E.3d 251, 255 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)