We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Attempting to reconnect
Fiberwave v. AT&T Enterprises
Analysis
Limitation-of-Liability Clauses Must Be Read in Context: Business Court Distinguishes 'Arising From' and 'Arising Out of or Related To' in Tort Claims Analysis
In Fiberwave v. AT&T Enterprises, the Business Court's First Division addressed whether the parties' 2022 Alliance Program Agreement's limitation-of-liability provision bars Fiberwave's tortious interference, defamation, and business disparagement claims arising from AT&T's post-termination conduct. The court held that Section 18.6's bar on damages 'arising from such termination' does not categorically preclude tort claims where the question is whether the damages—not merely the complained-of acts—arose from termination itself.
Defamation Claims Require Objectively Verifiable Statements: Business Court Grants Summary Judgment on Integrity-Based Allegations
In Fiberwave v. AT&T Enterprises, 2026 Tex. Bus. 2, the Texas Business Court granted AT&T's no-evidence motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's defamation claim, finding no evidence of a false, defamatory statement or that AT&T knew or should have known of its falsity. Fiberwave alleged that AT&T's email to solution providers—stating it was ending its relationship with Fiberwave based on integrity and doing the right thing—cunningly implied Fiberwave lacked integrity.
Contract Ambiguity Survives Summary Judgment Where Competing Interpretations Both Find Textual Support
In Fiberwave v. AT&T Enterprises, Division 1 denied cross-motions for summary judgment on contract interpretation, holding that a residual compensation provision was ambiguous where both parties' readings found support in the text but neither fully reconciled all language. The court granted summary judgment dismissing all fraud claims—plaintiff's fraudulent inducement claim for lack of justifiable reliance, and defendant's counterclaims on no-evidence grounds and under the economic loss rule.