AirPro appeals dismissal of Opus suit; Florida case moves forward

AirPro Diagnostics has appealed the dismissal of its breach of contract lawsuit against Opus IVS and its subsidiary, Drew Technologies.

AirPro alleges that Drew breached the parties’ contract and that the defendants engaged in unfair competition, tortiously interfering with AirPro’s business expectancies. Drew company, AutoEnginuity, and Opus CEO Brian Herron (former Drew president) are also named defendants in the case.

In October 2023, Opus and Drew countersued, denying all allegations against them, including breach of contract, unfair competition, and tortious interference with business expectancy. Opus also countersued AirPro, alleging breach of contract and unfair competition.

Last month, U.S. District Judge Linda V. Parker ruled that the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on AirPro’s breach of contract, tortious interference, and unfair competition claims, and that AirPro is entitled to summary judgment on Opus’s breach of contract and unfair competition counterclaims.

Opus called the ruling a “legal victory,” while AirPro said it was pleased with the court’s decision to throw out Opus’s counterclaims. Opus and Drew haven’t filed a response to the appeal in court.

In response to a request for comment on AirPro’s appeal, Herron told Repairer Driven News: “We are confident that the well-reasoned opinion from Judge Linda Parker will be affirmed on appeal. While AirPro has elected to continue pursuing its dismissed claims on appeal, Opus’s focus remains on serving customers with transparency and delivering true OEM solutions where requested.”

A spokesperson, on behalf of AirPro, told RDN the appeal was filed “to hold Opus IVS accountable for its breach of contract, customer interference, and unfair competition.”

“We also remain confident in our ongoing case in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, which includes substantial and valid claims of Opus IVS’s clear breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, fraud and injunctive relief,” the spokesperson said. “We look forward to holding Opus IVS responsible for its misconduct in both courts while continuing to serve as a best-in-class leader in the collision repair industry.”

The Florida suit is filed against Opus and AutoEnginuity. AutoEnginuity is a company owned by Opus’s subsidiary Drew Technologies. It alleges that AutoEnginuity shared confidential and proprietary information with Opus, a competing scan tool company. Doing so breached confidentiality/noncircumvention and third-party beneficiary agreements with AirPro, according to the complaint.

AirPro also claims that Opus and AutoEnginuity misappropriated trade secrets under Florida’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The complaint also alleges fraud and unjust enrichment. AirPro seeks permanent injunctive relief and declaratory judgment.

In their answer to the suit, Opus and AutoEnginuity denied that they were aware that the tools and information were confidential and proprietary to AirPro. They also denied receiving or disclosing any purported confidential information of AirPro.

“AirPro knew about and accepted Opus’s lawful competition, including its use of the Giotto Software, for years before belatedly claiming in 2022 that Opus’s remote scanning business was stolen from AirPro back in 2017,” the defendants wrote in their response. “Also, to the extent AirPro provided any purported ‘confidential information’ to defendants, AirPro expressly or impliedly assented to defendants’ use of that information for their own commercial purposes (and any other purpose) and/or by its conduct led Defendants to believe that there were no limitations or restrictions on defendants’ use of the purported ‘confidential information” allegedly provided by AirPro to defendants.”

Opus and AutoEnginuity countersued AirPro for copyright infringement, unjust enrichment, unfair competition, and violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

In May, Senior U.S. District Judge Timothy Corrigan denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss or stay the case. The request to stay was due to the pending Michigan case, which was decided last month. Following that ruling, Corrigan ordered stays on all discovery in the main case and counterclaim on Oct. 15.

Images

Featured image credit: Evelyn Mccarthy/iStock