Waste Administrative Services, Inc. v. The Krystal Company

Syllabus

We granted the Rule 9 application for an interlocutory appeal filed by The Krystal Company (\Krystal\) to consider whether certain communications between Krystal's chief legal officer and David Jungling (\Jungling\), an employee of Krystal vendor Denali Sourcing Services, Inc. (\Denali\), are protected by attorney-client privilege. Waste Administrative Services, Inc. (\WASI\), which provided refuse service for Krystal, sued Krystal, Denali, and Jungling in the Circuit Court for Knox County (\the Trial Court\) alleging that Krystal breached their contract by unilaterally terminating it and that Denali and Jungling induced the breach. The Trial Court held that communications between Jungling and Krystal's chief legal officer after June 9, 2014— at which time Krystal and Denali executed a master agreement—are protected by attorney-client privilege while prior communications are not. We hold that Jungling was the functional equivalent of a Krystal employee as of October 31, 2013 when he was told by Krystal's President to \take lead\ on Krystal's dealings with WASI, and that his subsequent communications with Krystal's chief legal officer qualify for attorney-client privilege belonging to Krystal. We, therefore, modify the judgment of the Trial Court and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.