The Business Court [Houston Division] has denied AT&T’s motion for partial summary judgment with regard to a wireless provider’s claims for tortious interference with contract and defamation associated with the termination of the parties’ agreement.
Fiberwave, Inc. v. AT&T Enterprises, LLC v. Spearhead Networks Tech, Inc., Faisal Chaudhry, and Chris Percy (No. 25-BC01A-0013; 2025 Tex. Bus. 42; October 29, 2025) arose from a dispute between the wireless provider Fiberwave and AT&T. Fiberwave filed suit, alleging tortious interference with contract, defamation, business disparagement, and other claims. AT&T moved for partial summary judgment on the tort claims, arguing that they were barred by the limitation-of-liability provision of the parties’ 2022 agreement. The agreement provided that upon termination of the agreement, “neither party will be liable to the other, either for compensation or for damages of any kind or character whatsoever arising from such termination.” AT&T contended that Fiberwave’s tort claims arose from termination of the agreement and fall within the ambit of the provision.
In an opinion by Judge Bouressa, the court disagreed. The question was the meaning of “arising from such termination.” The court observed that SCOTX and the Business Court have construed that phrase as requiring a broad causal relationship “akin to ‘but for’ causation instead of the narrower and limiting linkage required of ‘proximate causation.” Atlas IDF, LP v. NexPoint Real Est. Partners, LLC, 2025 Tex. Bs. 16, ¶ 29 (1st Div. 2025). Pointing to Plains Expl. & Prod. Co. v. Torch Energy Advisors Inc. (Plains Exploration), 473 S.W.3d 296 (Tex. 2015), the court observed that in that case SCOTX required “more than a simple causal connection.” Instead, “arising from” must be read in the context of the parties’ agreement, which may narrow its meaning. Here the court compared the provision cited above with another provision of the contract, in which the parties used the words “arising out of or related to.” That latter phrase, “related to,” does not require a causal connection, warranting a broader interpretation than “arising from.”
AT&T argued for the broader “but for” causation interpretation, “encompassing every logically connected event subsequent to the termination of the agreement.” But reading the two provisions together, the court concluded that “arising from … has limits, and cannot be interpreted broadly enough to support AT&T’s argument that, but for the termination of the 2022 [Alliance Program] Agreement, Fiberwave would not have sustained any of its claimed damages.” Consequently, the agreement does “categorically bar” Fiberwave’s tort claims based on the post-termination “issuance of a press release, communication via email, and publication on a website.” Fiberwave sought damages for those acts, not the termination itself. The court thus denied AT&T’s motion for partial judgment.
AT&T further argued that the because the agreement barred incidental, consequential, and/or indirect damages, it bars Fiberwave’s tort claims because “they only seek those types of damages.” The problem with this argument, the court observed, was that Fiberwave “pleaded for general damages but not for any special damages in relation to its claims for tortious interference with contract, defamation, or business disparagement.” While AT&T correctly argued that the agreement bars recover of “special” or “consequential damages,” it doesn’t bar recovery of general damages. The question then became whether Fiberwave could recover general damages on the challenged tort claims. As to the tortious interference claim, a plaintiff can recover certain categories of general damages, as in a breach of contract claim, including damages for harm to reputation. The same goes for a defamation claim, in which general damages may be recovered for noneconomic harm, including mental anguish or loss of reputation without proof of pecuniary loss. Regarding the business disparagement claim, however, a plaintiff may only recover special damages, since that cause of action “redresses commercial harm” and special damages must be pleaded.
Fiberwave thus won on two of three of its tort claims, tortious interference and defamation, allowing it to proceed.
