Tortious Interference With Advantageous Business Relationship –
[1]
Elements and Case Citations
(1) Plaintiff has a business relationship, not
necessarily evidenced by an enforceable contract;
(2) Defendant has knowledge of the relationship;
(3) Defendant intentionally and unjustifiedly interfered with the relationship;
and
(4) Plaintiff suffered damages.
____________________________________
Florida State Courts
Supreme Court: Gossard v. Adia Services, Inc., 723 So. 2d 182, 184 (Fla.
1998)
First District: Linafelt v. Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc., 745 So. 2d
386, 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
Second District: Toledo v. Hillsborough County Hosp. Authority, 841 So. 2d 482, 483 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2003)
Third District: Networkip, LLC v. Spread Enters., Inc., 922 So. 2d 355, 357-58 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2006)
Fourth District: Kreizinger v. Schlesinger, 924 So. 2d 431, 433 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
Fifth District: Walters v. Blankenship, 931 So. 2d 137, 140 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
Florida Federal Courts
Eleventh Circuit: KMS Restaurant Corp. v. Wendy's International, Inc., 361 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2004)
Southern District: Boldstar Tech., LLC v. Home Depot, Inc., 517 F. Supp. 2d 1283, 1288 (S.D. Fla. 2007)
Middle District: Border Collie Rescue, Inc. v. Ryan, 418 F. Supp. 2d 1330, 1343 (M.D. Fla. 2006)
References
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 767, (1995 Amendment)
[2]
Defenses to Claim for Tortious Interference With Advantageous
Business Relationship
(1) Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other
standard defenses. See § 60.
(2) Statute of Limitations: § 95.11(3)(p), Fla. Stat. (four years).
(3) Acts occurring during a judicial proceeding are absolutely privileged and
cannot give rise to tortious interference claims. See Levin, Middlebrooks v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994).
(5) Plaintiff cannot bring tortious interference claim when a contract provision
expressly reserves the right of interference. See McCurdy v. Collis, 508 So. 2d 380, 384 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), rev. denied, 518 So.
2d 1274 (Fla. 1987).
(6) An agent that gives, on request by his or her principal, ``honest advice’’ in
his or her principal’s best interest to breach an existing relationship is not liable for tortious interference. See Scussel v. Balter, 386
So. 2d 1227, 1228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); see also Restatement (Second)
of Torts § 772 (1965).
(7) Plaintiff cannot bring a tortious interference claim against a defendant that
is a party to the contract at issue. See Ethyl Co. v. Balter, 386 So. 2d 1220, 1224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 955 (1976).
(8) Privileged or justified conduct does not give rise to tortious
interference claim. See Heavener, Ogier Servs., Inc. v. R.W. Florida Regions, Inc., 418 So. 2d 1074, 1077 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); see also
Restatement (Second) of Torts
§ 768 (1965).
(9) Defendant acting to protect his or her own economic or financial interests
is not liable for tortious interference. See Bruce v. American Dev. Corp., 408 So. 2d 857, 858 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 769
(1965).
(10) Plaintiff cannot premise claim on alleged interference with a contract that
is terminable at will provided that interference is lawful competition. Adler Consulting Corp. v. Executive Life Ins. Co., 483 So. 2d 501, 502
(Fla. 3d DCA 1986).
(11) Defendant’s settlement of a lawsuit that adversely affects plaintiff’s
business interests does not give rise to tortious interference claim. Paparone v. Bankers Life & Casualty, Co., 496 So. 2d 865, 868 (Fla. 2d DCA
1986).
(12) Plaintiffs cannot establish a tortious interference claim by alleging that
defendant interfered with an amorphous class of customers, but rather must establish the existence of a business relationship with ``identifiable
customers’’. Ferguson Trans. v. North American Van Lines, 687 So. 2d 821, 821-822 (Fla. 1996).
