Kansas Supreme Court - 99536 – Wolfe Electric, Inc. v. Duckworth

opportunity for sales or loss of good will it would be of no consequence, while allocation
for lost profits would be.
Because there is no reasonable basis for us to excise the multiple erroneous parts of
the jury instructions and, correspondingly, to accurately modify the accompanying jury
awards of damages, the case must be remanded for a new trial. We consider some of the
additional issues only to provide guidance to the district court in the event the same issues
resurface. See State v. Simmons, 292 Kan. 406, 423, 254 P.3d 97 (2011).
Issue 2: Certain tort claims are barred by KUTSA.
Defendants make an argument somewhat related to the error contained in
Instruction 3 that improperly allowed liability under KUTSA for misappropriating
something besides a trade secret, i.e., mere confidential information. More specifically,
they argue that those portions of Wolfe Electric's tort claims requesting recovery for loss of
trade secrets—Duckworth's breach of fiduciary duty and Global's tortious
interference—were preempted by KUTSA as a matter of law. Citing K.S.A. 60-3326 and
caselaw, they therefore contend their dispositive motions based upon this ground should
have been granted by the trial court.
Wolfe Electric's brief concedes that KUTSA "certainly does displace traditional tort
remedies with respect to trade secrets" and essentially abandons any of its claims for
recovery for loss of trade secrets through these two tort causes of action. It somewhat
gratuitously adds, however, that "confidential and proprietary information" that does not
rise to the level of being a trade secret can still be, and should be, protected through these
tort causes of action. Wolfe Electric provides no legal authorities to support any of its
arguments.
32