Lexis Nexis - Case Brief

Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.


Law School Case Brief

Rash v. J.V. Intermediate, Ltd. - 498 F.3d 1201 (10th Cir. 2007)


A fiduciary relationship establishes a distinct and separate obligation than the duty of loyalty to an employer. The fiduciary duty exists because of the "peculiar" trust between the employee-agent and his employer-principal. Thus, the bonds created by a fiduciary relationship are stronger and the obligations are correspondingly more rigorous than those ascribed to the duty of loyalty.


J.V. Intermediate, Ltd. and J.V. Industrial Companies, Ltd. (JVIC) are Texas-based companies which build, refurbish, expand and manage assets for industrial process plants worldwide. JVIC hired W. Clayton Rash to start and manage a Tulsa, Oklahoma division of its industrial plant maintenance business, inspecting, repairing, and maintaining oil refineries and power plants. The parties signed an employment agreement providing Rash a base salary of $125,000, a bonus of 20% of JVIC-Tulsa's net profits, and a termination bonus of 20% of the division's equity. The contract stipulated the use of Texas law and required that Rash "devote [his] full work time and efforts" to JVIC. The agreement was to last for two years, from 1999 to 2001. Rash continued to serve as manager of the Tulsa branch until 2004, without any written contract extension.

Starting in 2001, JVIC claims that Rash actively participated in and owned at least four other businesses, none of which were ever disclosed to JVIC. One of those businesses was Total Industrial Plant Services, Inc. (TIPS), a scaffolding business. TIPS bid on projects for JVIC-Tulsa, and JVIC-Tulsa, with Rash as its manager, often selected TIPS as a subcontractor. At some point during Rash's tenure, JVIC started its own scaffolding business. Between 2001 to 2004, JVIC paid over $ 1 million to TIPS. The Tulsa division never used JVIC's scaffolding services.

Rash resigned from JVIC in July 2004. Rash subsequently sued JVIC for breach of contract and fraud. He claimed the company purposely understated the net profits and equity of the Tulsa branch and therefore did not properly pay him the net profit and equity bonuses. As affirmative defenses and counterclaims, JVIC claimed that Rash (1) materially breached his employment agreement, (2) breached  his duty of loyalty, and (3) breached his fiduciary duty. JVIC sought review of the decision of the district court which denied its Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 motion on a fiduciary duty claim, denied its motion for the equitable relief of fee forfeiture, and rejected its Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 26.01(b)(6) (2007) statute of frauds arguments.


Was there a fiduciary relationship between Rash and JVIC?




The federal court of appeals found not only that Rash’s agency relationship with JVIC created a fiduciary obligation, but also that JVIC breached his duty. He was hired to build JVIC’s Tulsa division from scratch, and he had sole management of it. Further, he contractually consented to devote his full work time and efforts to JVIC’s affairs. Moreover, he did not deny that he was JVIC’s agent, instead arguing about his agency's scope. But, as the duty encompassed the requirement that Rash deal openly with JVIC and fully disclose information about matters affecting JVIC’s business, he breached his fiduciary duty. As it could not be said for certain that a breach of fiduciary duty would not lead to a greater damage award than that awarded for a breach of loyalty, the error was not harmless. Further, the case required remand for determination of whether forfeiture was in order. Finally, the unwritten extension of Rash’s  contract beyond its initial two-year term did not violate the statute of frauds.

Access the full text case Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
Be Sure You're Prepared for Class