Tortious Interference With a Contractual Right –

[1] Elements and Case Citations

(1) The existence of contract to which plaintiff is a party;

(2) Defendant’s knowledge of the contract;

(3) Defendant’s intentional procurement of the contract’s breach;

(4) The absence of justification or privilege; and

(5) Plaintiff suffered damages resulting from the breach.

____________________________________

Florida State Courts

Supreme Court: Dade Enter., Inc. v. Wometco Theatres, Inc., 119 Fla. 70, 160 So. 209, 210 (1935)

First District: McKinney-Green, Inc. v. Davis, 606 So. 2d 393, 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)

Second District: Amedas, Inc v. Brown, 505 So. 2d 1091, 1093 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)

Third District: Penninsula Federal S&L v. DKH Properties, 616 So. 2d 1070, 1073 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), rev. denied, 626 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 1993)

Fourth District: Richard Bertram, Inc. v. Sterling Bank & Trust, 820 So.2d 963 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)

Fifth District: Florida Telephone Corp. v. Essig, 468 So. 2d 543, 544 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)

Florida Federal Courts

Southern District: Ace Pro Sound & Recording, LLC v. Albertson, 512 F. Supp. 2d 1259, 1268 (S.D. Fla. 2007)

Middle District: Bray & Gillespie Mgmt. LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 527 F. Supp. 2d 1355, 1367 (M.D. Fla. 2007)

Northern District: Williams Elec. Co. v. Honeywell, Inc., 772 F. Supp. 1225, 1235 (N.D. Fla. 1991)

References

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766 (1979)

[2] Defenses to Claim for Tortious Interference With a

Contractual Right

(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) Defendant is not liable where she did not ``intentionally’’ interfere with the plaintiff’s business relationship. See McCurdy v. Collis, 508 So. 2d 380, 383 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), rev. denied, 518 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1987).

(4) 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, 383 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), rev. denied, 518 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1987).

(6) 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 tortious interference claim against a defendant that is a party to the contract at issue. See Ethyl Corp. v. Balter, 386 So. 2d 1220, 1224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), U.S. 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 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 768 (1965).

(9) Defendant acting to protect 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 § 768 (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).