How To Prove A Tennessee Tortious Interference With Business Relations Claim
In Tennessee, a claim of Tortious Interference With Business Relations is defined as:
Tortious interference occurs when a third party intentionally and improperly interferes with a business relationship or with the performance of the terms of a contract.
It simply means:
A third party tries to disrupt or damage a contract or business relationship.
There are 5 elements of the claim:
- Element 1. The plaintiff had an existing business relationship with specific third parties or a prospective relationship with an identifiable class of third persons. The plaintiff had a current business connection with certain people or was hoping to work with a specific group of potential clients, which is important for proving that someone wrongfully interfered with their business dealings.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff had an ongoing contract with Company A, which generated significant revenue for their business.
* The plaintiff was in negotiations with a group of potential clients in the healthcare sector, indicating a prospective business relationship.
* The plaintiff had previously collaborated with Company B on multiple projects, establishing a strong business rapport.
* The plaintiff received inquiries from several third parties interested in forming partnerships, demonstrating a clear intent to engage in business.
* The plaintiff had a history of successful transactions with a specific industry group, showcasing established business relationships. - Element 2. The defendant had knowledge of that relationship and not merely an awareness of the plaintiff’s business dealings with others in general. The defendant knew about the specific relationship between the plaintiff and another party, rather than just being aware that the plaintiff was involved in business with various people.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant attended multiple meetings where the plaintiff’s business relationships were specifically discussed, indicating direct knowledge of those relationships.
* The defendant received detailed reports outlining the plaintiff’s key business partnerships, demonstrating an understanding of the plaintiff’s specific dealings.
* The defendant communicated directly with third parties about the plaintiff’s contracts, showing an awareness of the plaintiff’s business relationships beyond general knowledge.
* The defendant was informed by mutual acquaintances about the plaintiff’s ongoing negotiations with specific clients, indicating a clear awareness of the plaintiff’s business interactions.
* The defendant’s actions were motivated by a desire to disrupt the plaintiff’s established relationships, reflecting a conscious awareness of those specific connections. - Element 3. The defendant intended to cause the breach or termination of the business relationship. The defendant purposely acted in a way to disrupt or end a business relationship between two other parties, showing that they intended to cause harm to that relationship.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant made public statements encouraging clients to terminate their contracts with the plaintiff, demonstrating a clear intent to disrupt the business relationship.
* The defendant offered financial incentives to the plaintiff’s employees to leave their positions, indicating a desire to undermine the plaintiff’s operations.
* The defendant was aware of the plaintiff’s ongoing negotiations with a key partner and actively sought to interfere by contacting that partner directly.
* The defendant previously expressed a personal vendetta against the plaintiff, suggesting a motive to harm the plaintiff’s business interests.
* The defendant engaged in a campaign of misinformation about the plaintiff’s services, aiming to damage the plaintiff’s reputation and client relationships. - Element 4. The defendant acted with an improper motive or by improper means. This means the defendant intentionally tried to harm the plaintiff’s business relationships, either by using dishonest tactics or for selfish reasons, rather than just competing fairly.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The defendant intentionally spread false information about the plaintiff’s business practices to undermine their reputation in the industry.
* The defendant offered bribes to key employees of the plaintiff to induce them to leave and join a competing firm.
* The defendant engaged in a campaign of harassment against the plaintiff’s clients to persuade them to terminate their contracts.
* The defendant used confidential information obtained through a former employee to sabotage the plaintiff’s business negotiations.
* The defendant made threats to the plaintiff’s suppliers, coercing them to withdraw their support and services. - Element 5. The plaintiff suffered damages resulting from the tortious interference. The plaintiff experienced harm, such as lost profits or business opportunities, because someone wrongfully interfered with their business relationships, disrupting their ability to conduct business effectively.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff lost a significant contract with a key client due to the defendant’s actions, resulting in a revenue decrease of 30%.
* The plaintiff’s reputation in the industry suffered after the defendant spread false information, leading to a loss of potential business opportunities.
* The plaintiff incurred legal fees exceeding $15,000 while attempting to mitigate the damages caused by the defendant’s interference.
* The plaintiff experienced a decline in sales of 25% over six months, directly correlating with the defendant’s interference in business relations.
* The plaintiff was forced to lay off employees due to the financial strain caused by the defendant’s tortious actions, resulting in emotional distress and loss of morale.
(See Trau-Med of America, Inc. v. Allstate Ins., 71 SW 3d 691 – Tenn: Supreme Court (2002). Overnite Transportation Co. v. Teamsters Local Union No. 480, 172 SW 3d 507 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).)
If you’re representing yourself in court and plan to assert a Claim of Tortious Interference With Business Relations, having a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to make informed decisions about what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents that are supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Equip yourself with the tools and knowledge necessary to navigate this complex legal landscape effectively.
Prove Your TN Tortious Interference With Business Relations Claim
U.S. Civil Cases Only