Wandersee v. BP Products North America, Inc.

Brian Wandersee (plaintiff) owned Advanced Cleaning Technologies, Inc. (ACT) (plaintiff), a company that distributed, installed, and serviced car-wash systems. ACT was a distributor for PDQ Manufacturing, Inc. (PDQ), a car-wash system manufacturer. In December 1997, BP Products North America, Inc. (BP) (defendant) ordered three car-wash systems from PDQ, paying PDQ $437,697.92, including $99,916.67 for a system to be installed at BP’s O’Fallon location. BP requested delayed delivery because its car-wash locations were still under construction at the time of the order. PDQ asked Wandersee if ACT could store the car-wash systems until needed by BP. Wandersee agreed. In 1998 BP called ACT and arranged the delivery of two of the systems. The third system was the one intended for BP’s O’Fallon location. By February 1999, the O’Fallon system was still in ACT’s warehouse. Wandersee called BP’s regional market manager, who replied that the O’Fallon system was not in her budget. In July 1999, ACT employee Tami Weeks called BP regional security advisor Ron Benhart and stated that Wandersee and another ACT employee, Steve Amick, were attempting to sell the O’Fallon system without BP’s knowledge. Weeks provided a document that she claimed supported her allegations. Benhart subsequently contacted the Missouri police department to report Weeks’s allegation, and Weeks gave a supporting statement. The police obtained a warrant to search ACT’s premises, seized the O’Fallon system, and arrested Wandersee and Amick, charging them with theft. However, after taking depositions, the prosecutor decided to abandon the prosecution. Wandersee and ACT brought an action against BP for injurious falsehood. The jury ruled in favor of Wandersee and ACT. BP’s motion for a directed verdict was denied, and BP appealed. On appeal, BP argued that there was no evidence that BP acted knowingly or recklessly in making the allegations of theft. Additionally, BP argued that its actions did not cause Wandersee’s and ACT’s injuries. Finally, BP challenged the jury’s award of lost profits.