Tortious INterference With Business Relationship

32 Fla Jur Interference § 1
Florida Jurisprudence 2d > Interference > I. Interference with Contracts and with Advantageous
Business Relationship > A. Interference with Advantageous Business Relationship, In General
Author
Mitchell J. Waldman, J.D.
§ 1 Interference with advantageous business relationship, generally
It has been recognized that Florida recognizes a separable and independent tort of malicious interference with
n1 n2
contractual rights or advantageous business relationships; or, as sometimes stated, the intentional and
unjustified interference with the advantageous business relationship existing between others which results in injury
n3
constitutes a tort under the laws of Florida.
n1n1 West's Key Number Digest, Torts [westkey]211, 241
Liability in tort for interference with attorney-client relationship, 90 A.L.R.4th 621
Business interruption, without physical damage, as actionable, 65 A.L.R.4th 1126
Liability in tort for interference with physician's contract or relationship with hospital, 7 A.L.R.4th 572
Liability for interference with at will business relationship, 5 A.L.R.4th 9
Liability for interference with franchise, 97 A.L.R.3d 890
Tortious Deprivation of Former Employer's Customers and Employees, 25 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d 725
Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Interference § 6 (Complaint, petition, or declaration -- For intentional or negligent
interference with prospective economic advantage)
Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Interference § 32 (Complaint, petition, or declaration -- Intentional interference with
prospective economic advantage)
As to causes of action for the tort of interference with contract rights or relationships, generally, see §§ 9 et seq.
n2n2 Hales v. Ashland Oil, Inc., 342 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (disapproved of on other grounds by, Tamiami Trail
Tours, Inc. v. Cotton, 463 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1985)).
As to privileged or justified interferences, see §§ 15, 16.
n3n3 Franklin v. Brown, 159 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964).
As to elements of interference with a business relationship, generally, see § 4.

Page 2 of 51
Under Florida law, a mere offer to sell does not, by itself, give rise to sufficient legal rights to support a claim of
n4
intentional interference with a business relationship.
Reference
West's Key Number Digest, Torts [westkey]211, 213 to 216, 217 to 219, 228, 241, 250, 251, 254 to 256
A.L.R. Index, Interference and Obstruction
West's A.L.R. Digest, Torts [westkey]211, 213 to 216, 217 to 219, 228, 241, 250, 251, 254 to 256
Source: WEST GROUP
Florida Jurisprudence 2D Copyright © 2020 West Group
End of Document
n4n4 Duty Free Americas, Inc. v. Estee Lauder Companies, Inc., 797 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2015); Sirpal v. University of
Miami, 684 F. Supp. 2d 1349, 255 Ed. Law Rep. 712 (S.D. Fla. 2010).
A sale contract that was signed by prospective real estate buyers after allegedly reaching an oral agreement did not support
a claim of intentional interference with a business relationship, because the contract was merely an offer to sell. MD Associates
v. Friedman, 556 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
Author
§ 2 Distinction from interference with contract; requirements in action for

interference with business relationship regarding contract, understanding,
or agreement
The tortious interference with a contract and the tortious interference with a business relationship are basically the
same cause of action; the only material difference is that in the first action there is a contract and in the second,
n1
there is only a business relationship. Thus, in an action for intentional interference with a business relationship
n2 n3
under Florida law, the relationship need not be evidenced by a formal or enforceable contract. However,
n4
the alleged business relationship must be one under which the plaintiff has legal rights. In this regard, it has
been said that the business relationship must afford the plaintiff existing or prospective legal or contractual rights,
Pilkington v. United Airlines, Inc., 921 F. Supp. 740 (M.D. Fla. 1996), aff'd, 112 F.3d 1532 (11th Cir. 1997); Smith v. Ocean
State Bank, 335 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).
As to tortious interference with contracts, generally, see §§ 9 to 14.
n2n2 Barquin v. Monty's Sunset, L.L.C., 975 F. Supp. 2d 1309 (S.D. Fla. 2013).
n3n3 Hill Dermaceuticals, Inc. v. Anthem, Inc., 228 F. Supp. 3d 1292 (M.D. Fla. 2017); Clearplay, Inc. v. Nissim Corp., 555 F.
Supp. 2d 1318 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Special Purpose Accounts Receivable Co-op Corp. v. Prime One Capital Co., 125 F. Supp. 2d
1093 (S.D. Fla. 2000); St. Johns River Water Management Dist. v. Fernberg Geological Services, Inc., 784 So. 2d 500
(Fla. 5th DCA 2001); PRN of Denver, Inc. v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., 531 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Insurance Field
Services, Inc. v. White & White Inspection and Audit Service, Inc., 384 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Ethan Allen, Inc. v.
Georgetown Manor, Inc., 647 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 1994).
To state a claim for tortious interference with a business relationship under Florida law, a plaintiff need not plead an
enforceable contract. Sirpal v. University of Miami, 684 F. Supp. 2d 1349, 255 Ed. Law Rep. 712 (S.D. Fla. 2010).
n4n4 James Crystal Licenses, LLC v. Infinity Radio Inc., 43 So. 3d 68 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) ; Bortell v. White Mountains Ins.
Group, Ltd., 2 So. 3d 1041 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).
Page 4 of 51
n5
and that the relationship must be evidenced by an actual and identifiable understanding or agreement which in all
n6
probability would have been completed if the defendant had not interfered.
Reference
Supplement
Cases
Developer of information technology systems' claims for tortious interference with contract and tortious
interference with business relationships were not preempted by Florida Uniform Trade Secrets Act (FUTSA) in
action against pharmacy arising out of developer's contract with pharmacy, which contracted with hospitals to
dispense certain outpatient drugs at discount to low-income patients under federal drug pricing program, to provide
tracking software to monitor compliance with program, where misappropriation of trade secrets alone did not
comprise underlying wrong for non-FUTSA claims. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 688.008. Sentry Data Systems, Inc. v. CVS
Health, 361 F. Supp. 3d 1279 (S.D. Fla. 2018).
Source: WEST GROUP
n5n5 Hill Dermaceuticals, Inc. v. Anthem, Inc., 228 F. Supp. 3d 1292 (M.D. Fla. 2017) (construing Florida law); Sirpal v.
University of Miami, 684 F. Supp. 2d 1349, 255 Ed. Law Rep. 712 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (construing Florida law); Clearplay, Inc. v.
Nissim Corp., 555 F. Supp. 2d 1318 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (construing Florida law); St. Johns River Water Management Dist. v.
Fernberg Geological Services, Inc., 784 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Ethan Allen, Inc. v. Georgetown Manor, Inc., 647
So. 2d 812 (Fla. 1994).
n6n6 Hill Dermaceuticals, Inc. v. Anthem, Inc., 228 F. Supp. 3d 1292 (M.D. Fla. 2017) (construing Florida law); Barquin v.
Monty's Sunset, L.L.C., 975 F. Supp. 2d 1309 (S.D. Fla. 2013) (construing Florida law).
An actionable business relationship requires, as an element of tortious interference under Florida law, if not a contract, at
least an understanding between the parties that would have been completed had the defendant not interfered. Burge v.
Ferguson, 619 F. Supp. 2d 1225 (M.D. Fla. 2008).
Although a mere offer to sell is insufficient to state a claim for tortious interference with a business relationship under Florida
law, an action will lie if the parties' understanding would have been completed if the defendant had not interfered. Sirpal v.
University of Miami, 684 F. Supp. 2d 1349, 255 Ed. Law Rep. 712 (S.D. Fla. 2010).
Page 5 of 51
End of Document
Author
§ 3 Requirement that interfering party was third party or stranger to
business relationship
To be liable for interference with an advantageous business relationship, the interfering party must be a
n1 n2
disinterested third party with regard to the business relationship involved in the action. And, in this regard,
it has also been said that for the interference to be unjustified on a claim of tortious interference with a business
n3
relationship, the interfering defendant must be a third party, that is, a stranger to the business relationship.
Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Interference § 51 (Answer -- Defense of privilege of financially interested party)
Ernie Haire Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 260 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2001) (construing Florida law); Special Purpose Accounts
Receivable Co-op Corp. v. Prime One Capital Co., 125 F. Supp. 2d 1093 (S.D. Fla. 2000) (construing Florida law); Sloan v. Sax,
505 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Paparone v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 496 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) ; Peacock v.
General Motors Acceptance Corp., 432 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
n2n2 Ernie Haire Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 260 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2001) (construing Florida law); Romika-USA, Inc. v.
HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 514 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (S.D. Fla. 2007); Sloan v. Sax, 505 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Paparone v.
Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 496 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Peacock v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 432 So. 2d 142
(Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
n3n3 Astro Tel, Inc. v. Verizon Florida, LLC, 979 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (M.D. Fla. 2013) (construing Florida law); Palm Beach
County Health Care Dist. v. Professional Medical Educ., Inc., 13 So. 3d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).
For the interference to be unjustified, so as to support a claim for tortious interference with an advantageous business
relationship, the defendant must be a third party, external to the business relationship. Alexis v. Ventura, 66 So. 3d 986 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2011).
In the context of a tortious interference claim under Florida law, an interference is unjustified where the interfering defendant
is a stranger to the business relationship. Hamilton v. Suntrust Mortg. Inc., 6 F. Supp. 3d 1312 (S.D. Fla. 2014) (applying Florida
law).
Page 7 of 51
Thus, a cause of action for tortious interference with a business relationship does not exist against one who is a
n4
party to the business relationship allegedly interfered with.
A defendant is not a stranger to a business relationship for purposes of a claim of interference with a business
relationship if the defendant has any beneficial or economic interest in, or control over, that relationship,
n5
including when a defendant has a supervisory interest in how the relationship is conducted or a potential financial
n6
interest in how a contract is performed.
Observation: In the context of a managerial or supervisory employee terminating a plaintiff's employment, an

action for tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship will usually not lie against the
n7
terminating employee because he or she is considered a party to the employment relationship. However, in
this regard, although an allegation that the defendant was maliciously motivated does not by itself mean that
defendant acted outside the scope of his employment, so as to allow the assertion of a claim of tortious interference
with an advantageous business relationship against a coemployee, an allegation that the defendant was not acting
on the employer's behalf or was acting to its detriment satisfies the requirement that the interference be by a third
n8
party.
Reference
n4n4 Scelta v. Delicatessen Support Services, Inc., 57 F. Supp. 2d 1327 (M.D. Fla. 1999); Rudnick v. Sears, Roebuck and
Co., 358 F. Supp. 2d 1201 (S.D. Fla. 2005); Nicor Intern. Corp. v. El Paso Corp., 292 F. Supp. 2d 1357 (S.D. Fla. 2003).
Under Florida law, a tortious-interference claim cannot succeed when the alleged interference is directed at a business
relationship to which the defendant is a party. SIG, Inc. v. AT & T Digital Life, Inc., 971 F. Supp. 2d 1178 (S.D. Fla. 2013).
n5n5 Hamilton v. Suntrust Mortg. Inc., 6 F. Supp. 3d 1312 (S.D. Fla. 2014) (applying Florida law); Palm Beach County Health
Care Dist. v. Professional Medical Educ., Inc., 13 So. 3d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).
n6n6 Hamilton v. Suntrust Mortg. Inc., 6 F. Supp. 3d 1312 (S.D. Fla. 2014) (applying Florida law).
Employers failed to state a claim under Florida law for tortious interference with a business relationship between the
employers and a technology company since the defendant employee, who was hired to recruit investors and assist in the
deployment of a new wireless communication network, had a supervisory interest in the business relationship. Treco Intern. S.A.
v. Kromka, 706 F. Supp. 2d 1283 (S.D. Fla. 2010).
An automobile repair shop, which alleged that an automobile insurance company falsely stated to repair shop customers and
prospective customers that the shop was overcharging its customers, failed to state a claim under Florida law against the insurer
for tortious interference with a business relationship, since the complaint alleged that the insurer "interfered" only with the shop's
customers who submitted claims to the insurer; because the insurer had to indemnify the shop's customers for the repair
performed by the shop, the insurer was an interested party in the business relation between the shop and those customers who
were its insureds. Gunder's Auto Center v. State Farm Ins., 617 F. Supp. 2d 1222 (M.D. Fla. 2009), aff'd, 422 Fed. Appx. 819
(11th Cir. 2011).
As to privilege or justification for interference, generally, and defenses to an action therefor, see §§ 15 et seq.
n7n7 Alexis v. Ventura, 66 So. 3d 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).
n8n8 Alexis v. Ventura, 66 So. 3d 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), stating further that employee's direct supervisor, whose creation
of a hostile work environment on the basis of employee's race and national origin allegedly led to employee's termination, could
potentially be characterized as a third party with respect to the relationship between the employee and employer, as necessary
to support employee's claim against the supervisor for tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship.
Page 8 of 51
Supplement
Cases
Under Florida law, as related to tortious interference with a business relationship, intentional and unjustified inquiry
is fact-intensive and requires an examination of the defendant's conduct, its motive, and the interests it sought to
advance. Sentry Data Systems, Inc. v. CVS Health, 361 F. Supp. 3d 1279 (S.D. Fla. 2018).
Source: WEST GROUP
End of Document
Author
§ 4 Elements, generally; required allegations and proof
The elements of tortious interference with a business relationship are: (1) the existence of a business relationship,
n1 n2 n3
not necessarily evidenced by an enforceable contract, under which the plaintiff has legal rights; (2)
n4
knowledge of the relationship on the part of the defendant; (3) an intentional and unjustified interference with
n5 n6 n7
the relationship by the defendant; and (4) damage to the plaintiff as a result of the interference or
n8
breach of the relationship.
n1n1 West's Key Number Digest, Torts [westkey]211, 214, 215, 217 to 219, 241, 250, 255, 256
Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Interference § 6 (Complaint, petition, or declaration -- For intentional or negligent
interference with prospective economic advantage)
Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Interference § 32 (Complaint, petition, or declaration -- Intentional interference with
prospective economic advantage)
Duty Free Americas, Inc. v. Estee Lauder Companies, Inc., 797 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2015) (construing Florida law); Effs v.
Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, Inc., 197 So. 3d 1243 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); Swope Rodante, P.A. v. Harmon, 85 So. 3d 508
(Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Ethan Allen, Inc. v. Georgetown Manor, Inc., 647 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 1994).
n2n2 Palm Beach County Health Care Dist. v. Professional Medical Educ., Inc., 13 So. 3d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).
n4n4 Duty Free Americas, Inc. v. Estee Lauder Companies, Inc., 797 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2015) (construing Florida law); Effs
v. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, Inc., 197 So. 3d 1243 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); Swope Rodante, P.A. v. Harmon, 85 So. 3d
508 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Palm Beach County Health Care Dist. v. Professional Medical Educ., Inc., 13 So. 3d 1090 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2009); Ethan Allen, Inc. v. Georgetown Manor, Inc., 647 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 1994).
n5n5 Duty Free Americas, Inc. v. Estee Lauder Companies, Inc., 797 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2015) (construing Florida law); Effs
v. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, Inc., 197 So. 3d 1243 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); Swope Rodante, P.A. v. Harmon, 85 So. 3d
508 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Palm Beach County Health Care Dist. v. Professional Medical Educ., Inc., 13 So. 3d 1090 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2009); Ethan Allen, Inc. v. Georgetown Manor, Inc., 647 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 1994).
Page 10 of 51
n9 n10
Accordingly, to state and prove a claim for tortious interference with a business relationship the plaintiff
n11 n12
must allege and prove the applicable elements.
Imbedded within the elements of a tortious interference claim is the requirement that the plaintiff establish that the
n13
defendant's conduct caused or induced the breach that resulted in the plaintiff's damages. The plaintiff must
establish the proximate causation between the defendant's actions and the plaintiff's damage by demonstrating that
n14
the parties' understanding would have been completed but for the defendant's interference. The requisite
showing of causation in an action for tortious interference with a business relationship cannot be supported by a
n15
mere supposition that the defendant's interference caused the cessation of the business relationship.
A defendant tortiously interfered with the plaintiff-seller's arrangement with its buyer to pay the seller for orders placed
through the defendant, by instructing the buyer to pay it directly. Devon Medical, Inc. v. Ryvmed Medical, Inc., 60 So. 3d 1125
(Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
n6n6 Duty Free Americas, Inc. v. Estee Lauder Companies, Inc., 797 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2015) (construing Florida law);
Swope Rodante, P.A. v. Harmon, 85 So. 3d 508 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Palm Beach County Health Care Dist. v. Professional
Medical Educ., Inc., 13 So. 3d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Ethan Allen, Inc. v. Georgetown Manor, Inc., 647 So. 2d 812 (Fla.
1994).
n8n8 Duty Free Americas, Inc. v. Estee Lauder Companies, Inc., 797 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2015) (construing Florida law);
Swope Rodante, P.A. v. Harmon, 85 So. 3d 508 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Ethan Allen, Inc. v. Georgetown Manor, Inc., 647 So. 2d
812 (Fla. 1994).
Intentional interference with a business relationship requires: (1) existence of a business relationship that affords the plaintiff
with existing or prospective legal or contractual rights; (2) defendant's knowledge of that relationship; (3) an intentional and
unjustified interference with that relationship by the defendant; and (4) damage to the plaintiff resulting from the breach of that
relationship. Ferris v. South Florida Stadium Corp., 926 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).
Four elements are required to establish tortious interference with a contractual or business relationship: (1) the existence of
a business relationship or contract; (2) knowledge of the business relationship or contract on the part of the defendant; (3) an
intentional and unjustified interference with the business relationship or procurement of the contract's breach; and (4) damage to
the plaintiff as a result of the interference. Howard v. Murray, 184 So. 3d 1155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).
As to interference with contracts, generally, see §§ 9 to 14.
As to conditions under which interference with a business relationship is privileged or justified, see §§ 15, 16.
n9n9 E-Ventures Worldwide, LLC v. Google, Inc., 2016 WL 4409339 (M.D. Fla. 2016) (construing Florida law); Southeastern
Integrated Medical, P.L. v. North Florida Women's Physicians, P.A., 50 So. 3d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Marquez v.
PanAmerican Bank, 943 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Alday-Donalson Title Co. of Florida,
Inc., 832 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
To state a claim under Florida law for tortious interference with a business relationship, a plaintiff must establish four
elements: (1) the existence of a business relationship between the plaintiff and a third party, (2) the defendant's knowledge of
the relationship, (3) the defendant's intentional and unjustified interference with the relationship, and (4) damages resulting from
the defendant's interference. Hill Dermaceuticals, Inc. v. Anthem, Inc., 228 F. Supp. 3d 1292 (M.D. Fla. 2017).
Under Florida law, plaintiff must establish the following five elements to state a claim for tortious interference with an
advantageous business relationship: (1) the existence of a business relationship under which the claimant has rights; (2)
defendant's knowledge of the relationship; (3) an intentional and unjustified interference with the relationship; (4) by a third party;
and (5) damage to the claimant cause by the interference. Pediatric Nephrology Associates of South Florida v. Variety
Children's Hospital, 226 F. Supp. 3d 1346 (S.D. Fla. 2016).
Page 11 of 51
n16
When there are no damages to the plaintiff, he or she has no cause of action. An unsuccessful interference
is not the kind of interference upon which a tort may be founded or upon which damages may be assessed;
n17
and under Florida law, proof of nominal damages will not suffice to state a claim for tortious interference with a
n18
business relationship.
Observation: Any determination whether a defendant acted without justification, as an element of a claim for
tortious interference with a business relationship, is highly fact dependent and requires an examination of the
n19
defendant's conduct, its motive, and the interests it sought to advance.
n10n10 Realauction.com, LLC v. Grant Street Group, Inc., 82 So. 3d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Castelli v. Select Auto
Management, Inc., 63 So. 3d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); James Crystal Licenses, LLC v. Infinity Radio Inc., 43 So. 3d 68 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2010).
n11n11 E-Ventures Worldwide, LLC v. Google, Inc., 2016 WL 4409339 (M.D. Fla. 2016) (construing Florida law);
Southeastern Integrated Medical, P.L. v. North Florida Women's Physicians, P.A., 50 So. 3d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Chicago
Title Ins. Co. v. Alday-Donalson Title Co. of Florida, Inc., 832 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
To state a cause of action for tortious interference with a business relationship, the aggrieved party must show: (1) the
existence of a business relationship with another; (2) the defendant's knowledge of that relationship; (3) an intentional and
unjustified interference with the relationship by the defendant; and (4) that the aggrieved party was damaged as a result of the
defendant's interference. Marquez v. PanAmerican Bank, 943 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).
To bring a claim for tortious interference with a business relationship, the plaintiff must show: (1) the existence of a business
relationship, not necessarily evidenced by an enforceable contract, (2) knowledge of the relationship on the part of the
defendant, (3) an intentional and unjustified interference with the relationship by the defendant, and (4) damage to the plaintiff as
a result of the breach of the relationship. University of West Florida Bd. of Trustees v. Habegger, 125 So. 3d 323, 299 Ed. Law
Rep. 341 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).
The third element of a tortious interference with a prospective business relationship claim under Florida law, intentional and
unjustified interference with a business relationship, requires the plaintiff to allege that the defendant acted without justification.
Duty Free Americas, Inc. v. Estee Lauder Companies, Inc., 797 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2015).
A physician's employer stated a claim against the employer's competitor for tortious interference with a business relationship,
arising out of the competitor's solicitation of the physician to leave the employer and come work with the competitor, where the
employer alleged the existence of a business relationship between itself and the physician as evidenced by the employment
agreement, that the competitor had actual knowledge of a noncompete provision in the employment agreement, that the
competitor intentionally interfered with the relationship between the employer and the physician by encouraging the physician to
come work for it, in breach of the physician's noncompete agreement with her employer, and that the physician had stated her
intention to terminate her employment and had accepted an offer from the competitor. Southeastern Integrated Medical, P.L. v.
North Florida Women's Physicians, P.A., 50 So. 3d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).
n12n12 Realauction.com, LLC v. Grant Street Group, Inc., 82 So. 3d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Castelli v. Select Auto
Management, Inc., 63 So. 3d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); James Crystal Licenses, LLC v. Infinity Radio Inc., 43 So. 3d 68 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2010).
There was no evidence that, at the time the assignee of automobile financing agreements accepted payments from
customers, he knew about the finance company's business relationships with its customers, as required to support a tortious
interference claim. Castelli v. Select Auto Management, Inc., 63 So. 3d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).
n13n13 University of West Florida Bd. of Trustees v. Habegger, 125 So. 3d 323, 299 Ed. Law Rep. 341 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013);
Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Alday-Donalson Title Co. of Florida, Inc., 832 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
Page 12 of 51
Reference
Supplement
Cases
Relationship required for Florida tortious interference with present or prospective business relationship claim need
not be evidenced by a contract but requires an understanding between the parties that would have been
contemplated had the defendant not interfered. Commodores Entertainment Corporation v. McClary, 324 F. Supp.
3d 1245 (M.D. Fla. 2018).
nn14 Tietig v. Southeast Regional Const. Corp., 557 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Fort Lauderdale Riverwalk Properties,
Inc. v. White, 531 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).
A roofing manufacturer, who failed to issue a roof bond, was not liable to a subcontractor for interference with its business
relationship with a general contractor, where there was no evidence that the failure to issue the roof bond resulted in the general
contractor's decision to remove the subcontractor from its approved bidders list. Independent Roofing Enterprises, Inc. v.
Celotex Corp., 512 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).
A marine mechanic who leased space in a marina did not establish a claim of tortious interference with business
relationships against the marina owner, where the mechanic's proof of damages consisted of testimony that many former
customers stopped bringing their boats to him for repairs and that his income decreased over several years after the alleged
tortious interference started, but the mechanic presented no evidence to connect the loss of any customer's business to the
alleged tortious conduct of the marina owner. Bayley Products, Inc. v. Cole, 720 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
n15n15 Realauction.com, LLC v. Grant Street Group, Inc., 82 So. 3d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
n16n16 Gerber v. Keyes Co., 443 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), holding that a buyer of a building who submitted a
purchase offer to a second broker after its broker-client relationship with another broker was terminated was not liable to the first
broker for interference with a business relationship when the first broker, who had an exclusive listing of the building, received its
full commission from the owner when the building was sold.
n17n17 American Medical Intern., Inc. v. Scheller, 462 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
n18n18 Eclipse Medical, Inc. v. American Hydro-Surgical Instruments, Inc., 262 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (S.D. Fla. 1999), aff'd, 235
F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2000).
n19n19 Duty Free Americas, Inc. v. Estee Lauder Companies, Inc., 797 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2015); Howard v. Murray, 184
So. 3d 1155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).
Page 13 of 51
Developer of information technology systems plausibly alleged pharmacy employed improper means, as required
to state claim for tortious interference with a business relationship under Florida law against pharmacy arising out of
developer's contract with pharmacy, which contracted with hospitals to dispense certain outpatient drugs at discount
to low-income patients under federal drug pricing program, to provide tracking software to monitor compliance with
program; developer alleged that it had valid exclusive contracts with customers, that pharmacy knew about
customer contracts, and that pharmacy intentionally and unjustifiably interfered with customer contracts using
developer's trade secrets and confidential information to coerce customers to breach existing contracts or fail to
renew expiring contracts. Sentry Data Systems, Inc. v. CVS Health, 361 F. Supp. 3d 1279 (S.D. Fla. 2018).
Source: WEST GROUP
End of Document
Author
§ 5 Relationship required
To establish the tort of interference with a business relationship the plaintiff must establish the existence of a
n1
protected business relationship. In this regard, the plaintiff must prove a business relationship with identifiable
n2 n3
customers, although the identification of specific individuals or customers is not necessarily required. To
n1n1 West's Key Number Digest, Torts [westkey]214
Pakonis v. Clark, 156 So. 3d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).
For a plaintiff shareholder of a cigar manufacturing company to state a claim for tortious interference with advantageous
business relationships under Florida law against defendant shareholders, based on the defendant shareholders' alleged creation
of a competing company and solicitation of business from the manufacturer's customers, the plaintiff shareholder was required
to allege only the existence of a business relationship, and was not required to allege a specific property interest in the property
related to business relationship, that is, the private labels that the company manufactured. Pujals ex rel. El Rey De Los
Habanos, Inc. v. Garcia, 777 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (S.D. Fla. 2011).
n2n2 Hill Dermaceuticals, Inc. v. Anthem, Inc., 228 F. Supp. 3d 1292 (M.D. Fla. 2017) (interpreting Florida law); Ferguson
Transp., Inc. v. North American Van Lines, Inc., 687 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1996).
Restaurant employees did not have a business relationship with customers, as required for their interference with business
relationship claims under Florida law with regard to a restaurant not allowing customers to leave tips above the 18% automatic
service charge; customers had a relationship with the restaurant, not the employees, and the employees were hired by the
restaurant to serve customers subject to the restaurant's direction and control. Barquin v. Monty's Sunset, L.L.C., 975 F. Supp.
2d 1309 (S.D. Fla. 2013) (applying Florida law).
n3n3 Pediatric Nephrology Associates of South Florida v. Variety Children's Hospital, 226 F. Supp. 3d 1346 (S.D. Fla. 2016),
holding that a pediatric nephrology practice group stated claim for tortious interference with advantageous professional
relationships, under Florida law, against a competing pediatric practice group at the hospital which was allegedly trying to force
the nephrology group out of facility, despite a failure to allege the identity of any patients or independent physicians with whom
the nephrology group had business relations, as allegations that merely identified that the business relationships at issue were
the nephrology group partners' professional relationships with other doctors practicing at the hospital were sufficient.
Page 15 of 51
sustain a tortious interference claim, there must be a relationship in existence at the time of any alleged
n4
interference.
A plaintiff may properly bring a cause of action alleging the tortious interference with present or prospective
n5
customers, But, generally, no cause of action exists for tortious interference with a business's relationship to its
n6
past customers, absent an identifiable agreement between a past customer and a plaintiff that the past
n7
customer would do business with the plaintiff again. Nor does a cause of action for tortious interference exist
n8
with regard to the business's relationship to the community at large; under Florida law, a business's
relationship with the general consuming public is not protected, as required for tortious interference with business
n9
relationship.
Furthermore, a speculative hope of future business is not sufficient to sustain the tort of interference with a
n10
business relationship. In this regard, although an identifiable agreement with past customers that they will
return for future business may support a tortious interference claim under Florida law, the mere hope that past
n11
customers may choose to buy again will not.
Under Florida law, an at-will relationship can satisfy the business relationship element of a claim for tortious
n12
interference with a business relationship.
n4n4 Realauction.com, LLC v. Grant Street Group, Inc., 82 So. 3d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).
n5n5 Astro Tel, Inc. v. Verizon Florida, LLC, 979 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (M.D. Fla. 2013) (construing Florida law); Coach Services,
Inc. v. 777 Lucky Accessories, Inc., 752 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (construing Florida law); Ethan Allen, Inc. v.
Georgetown Manor, Inc., 647 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 1994).
Under Florida law, although a business's relationship with a past customer is not a protected relationship, for purposes of
tortious interference with business relationship, an ongoing relationship with a current customer or a potential relationship with a
future customer may be protected. Hill Dermaceuticals, Inc. v. Anthem, Inc., 228 F. Supp. 3d 1292 (M.D. Fla. 2017).
n6n6 Hill Dermaceuticals, Inc. v. Anthem, Inc., 228 F. Supp. 3d 1292 (M.D. Fla. 2017) (construing Florida law); Ethan Allen,
Inc. v. Georgetown Manor, Inc., 647 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 1994).
Under Florida law, a plaintiff's past relationship with a past customer cannot be the basis for the existence of a business
relationship, for purposes of establishing a tortious interference claim. Duty Free Americas, Inc. v. Estee Lauder Companies,
Inc., 946 F. Supp. 2d 1321 (S.D. Fla. 2013) (construing Florida law).
n7n7 Duty Free Americas, Inc. v. Estee Lauder Companies, Inc., 946 F. Supp. 2d 1321 (S.D. Fla. 2013) (construing Florida
law).
n8n8 Dunn v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, 193 F.3d 1185 (11th Cir. 1999); Astro Tel, Inc. v. Verizon Florida, LLC, 979 F. Supp. 2d
1284 (M.D. Fla. 2013) (construing Florida law); Burge v. Ferguson, 619 F. Supp. 2d 1225 (M.D. Fla. 2008) (construing Florida
law); Coach Services, Inc. v. 777 Lucky Accessories, Inc., 752 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (construing Florida law).
n9n9 Hill Dermaceuticals, Inc. v. Anthem, Inc., 228 F. Supp. 3d 1292 (M.D. Fla. 2017).
n10n10 In re Maxxim Medical Group, Inc., 434 B.R. 660 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2010) (construing Florida law); Realauction.com,
LLC v. Grant Street Group, Inc., 82 So. 3d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); St. Johns River Water Management Dist. v. Fernberg
Geological Services, Inc., 784 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
n11n11 Burge v. Ferguson, 619 F. Supp. 2d 1225 (M.D. Fla. 2008).
n12n12 Rudnick v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 358 F. Supp. 2d 1201 (S.D. Fla. 2005).
Page 16 of 51
Observation: To support a cause of action for tortious interference with a business relationship, the business
relationship must be evidenced by an actual and identifiable understanding or agreement which in all probability
n13
would have been completed if the defendant had not interfered. Thus, for example, under Florida law, to
establish a protected business relationship within a bidding process, for purposes of a tortious interference claim, a
plaintiff must allege additional facts indicating that the relationship went beyond the bidding process and into
n14
negotiations which in all probability would have been completed.
Reference
Source: WEST GROUP
End of Document
n13n13 Mobile Shelter Systems USA, Inc. v. Grate Pallet Solutions, LLC, 845 F. Supp. 2d 1241 (M.D. Fla. 2012) , aff'd in part,
505 Fed. Appx. 928 (11th Cir. 2013) (construing Florida law); Coach Services, Inc. v. 777 Lucky Accessories, Inc., 752 F.
Supp. 2d 1271 (S.D. Fla. 2010); In re Maxxim Medical Group, Inc., 434 B.R. 660 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2010) (construing Florida
law); Realauction.com, LLC v. Grant Street Group, Inc., 82 So. 3d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Jay v. Mobley, 783 So. 2d 297
(Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Ethan Allen, Inc. v. Georgetown Manor, Inc., 647 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 1994).
n14n14 Duty Free Americas, Inc. v. Estee Lauder Companies, Inc., 946 F. Supp. 2d 1321 (S.D. Fla. 2013).
Page 18 of 51
Author
Page 19 of 51
Page 20 of 51
Page 21 of 51
Page 22 of 51
Page 23 of 51
Page 24 of 51
Page 25 of 51
Page 26 of 51
Page 27 of 51
Page 28 of 51
Page 29 of 51
Page 30 of 51
Page 31 of 51
Page 32 of 51
Page 33 of 51
Page 34 of 51
Page 35 of 51
Page 36 of 51
Page 37 of 51
Page 38 of 51
Page 39 of 51
Page 40 of 51
Page 41 of 51
Page 42 of 51
Page 43 of 51
Page 44 of 51
Page 45 of 51
Page 46 of 51
§ 6 Nature and intent of interference
n1
There is no cause of action for negligent interference with a business relationship; to be actionable, the
n2 n3
interference must be both intentional and direct. Conduct that has only indirect consequences on the
n4
plaintiff will not support a claim of tortious interference. And, in fact, it has been said, in this regard, that one of
the essential elements of a claim for intentional interference with an advantageous business relationship is that the
n5
interference be both direct and intentional.
Observation: Protecting a company's own economic interest to reduce the risk of incurring further loss does not
constitute intent to damage within the meaning of a cause of action for intentional interference with a business
n6
relationship.
A prima facie case of tortious interference with a business relationship does not require a showing that the
n7
interference was intended to secure a business advantage; according to the Florida Supreme Court, there is
n1n1 West's Key Number Digest, Torts [westkey]215, 216, 219, 241
McCurdy v. Collis, 508 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Ethyl Corp. v. Balter, 386 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
n2n2 Romika-USA, Inc. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 514 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (S.D. Fla. 2007); Alphamed Pharmaceuticals Corp.
v. Arriva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 391 F. Supp. 2d 1148 (S.D. Fla. 2005); Networkip, LLC v. Spread Enterprises, Inc., 922 So. 2d
355 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Rockledge Mall Associates, Ltd. v. Custom Fences of South Brevard, Inc., 779 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 5th
DCA 2001); McCurdy v. Collis, 508 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Ethyl Corp. v. Balter, 386 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 3d DCA
1980).
n3n3 Astro Tel, Inc. v. Verizon Florida, LLC, 979 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (M.D. Fla. 2013) (construing Florida law); IBP, Inc. v. Hady
Enterprises, Inc., 267 F. Supp. 2d 1148, 51 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 950 (N.D. Fla. 2002) , aff'd, 52 Fed. Appx. 487 (11th Cir.
2002); Romika-USA, Inc. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 514 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (S.D. Fla. 2007); Rockledge Mall Associates, Ltd. v.
Custom Fences of South Brevard, Inc., 779 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (construing Florida law).
n4n4 Astro Tel, Inc. v. Verizon Florida, LLC, 979 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (M.D. Fla. 2013) (construing Florida law).
n5n5 Lawler v. Eugene Wuesthoff Memorial Hosp. Ass'n, 497 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Rosa v. Florida Coast
Bank, 484 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).
As to the generally recognized elements of the tort of interference with a business relationship, generally, see § 4.
n6n6 Networkip, LLC v. Spread Enterprises, Inc., 922 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).
There can be no claim for tortious interference with a business relationship where the action complained of is undertaken to
safeguard or promote one's financial or economic interest. Barco Holdings, LLC v. Terminal Inv. Corp., 967 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2007).
n7n7 Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc. v. Cotton, 463 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1985).
To establish tortious interference with a business relationship there is no requirement that the interference was intended to
secure a business advantage over the plaintiff. Rockledge Mall Associates, Ltd. v. Custom Fences of South Brevard, Inc., 779
So. 2d 554 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (construing Florida law).
Page 47 of 51
no reason why one who damages another in his or her business relationships should escape liability because his or
n8
her motive is malice rather than greed. Thus, it is enough for the alleged interference to have been motivated
n9
by malice; it need not have been motivated by greed. However, there is some disagreement between courts as
n10
to whether greed or ill will is required to establish interference with a business relationship.
Observation: Liability may arise on a claim for tortious interference with business relations under Florida law for
the publication of false information. When determining the falsity on such a claim, a court analyzes how a
reasonable reader would understand the disputed material; the court considers the context of the statements and
n11
the commonly understood meaning of terms.
Reference
Source: WEST GROUP
End of Document
n8n8 Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc. v. Cotton, 463 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1985).
n9n9 Alphamed Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Arriva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 391 F. Supp. 2d 1148 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (construing
Florida law).
n10n10 § 7.
n11n11 Ranbaxy Laboratories Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., 826 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2016).
Author
§ 7 Necessity of malice or ill will
Despite some authority for the view that the existence of malice is key to the tort of tortious interference with a
n1
business relationship, and that a showing of malice or ill will is necessary, and that malice or ill will is required
to be shown to establish the element of intentional or unjustified interference with a business relationship in Florida,
n2
a Florida court has noted that malice is conspicuously absent from the elements that one must prove in order to
n3
show tortious interference with a business relationship. Furthermore, it has been stated that a claim of tortious
interference with business relationships may succeed, even where the defendant's motive is not purely malicious, if
n4
improper methods were used.
Rockledge Mall Associates, Ltd. v. Custom Fences of South Brevard, Inc., 779 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
The existence of malice was a necessary element of a plaintiff's case in an action for tortious interference with business
relationship. Southern Bell Tel. and Tel. Co. v. Roper, 482 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).
n2n2 IBP, Inc. v. Hady Enterprises, Inc., 267 F. Supp. 2d 1148, 51 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 950 (N.D. Fla. 2002) , aff'd, 52 Fed.
Appx. 487 (11th Cir. 2002); In re Maxxim Medical Group, Inc., 434 B.R. 660 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2010) (holding that competitor of
medical services and supply company did not act with malice in entering Maine market for custom procedure trays (CPTs), as
required for competitor to be liable to company under Florida law for tortious or intentional interference with business
relationship, where competitor began soliciting business from hospitals in Maine after it was awarded contract with hospital
group purchasing organization (GPO) and was encouraged by GPO to service GPO's clients, and competitor acted in good faith
by serving GPO's clients, doing so to promote its own business and not to sabotage company).
As to intentional or unjustified interference with a business relationship as an element of the tort of interference with such
relationship, generally, see § 4.
n3n3 J.T.A. Factors, Inc. v. Philcon Services, Inc., 820 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).
n4n4 KMS Restaurant Corp. v. Wendy's Intern., Inc., 361 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2004) (construing Florida law).
Page 49 of 51
Observation: Where required, it has also been stated that the only way malice can be proved in an action for
tortious interference with a business relationship, in the absence of direct evidence is by proving a series of acts
which, in their context or in light of the totality of the surrounding circumstances, are inconsistent with the premise of
a reasonable man pursuing a lawful objective, but rather indicate a plan or course of conduct motivated by spite, ill
n5
will, or other bad motive.
Reference
Source: WEST GROUP
End of Document
n5n5 Southern Bell Tel. and Tel. Co. v. Roper, 482 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).
Author
§ 8 Relief available
n1
An injunction may be sought to prevent tortious interference with advantageous business relationships. A party
who seeks a temporary injunction based on a claim of tortious interference with business relationships must
generally show (1) a clear legal right or interest in the subject matter of the suit, (2) a substantial likelihood of
success on the merits, and (3) the likelihood of irreparable harm because of the unavailability of an adequate
n2
remedy at law.
n3
A court may also assess damages against the defendant.
Reference
Punitive damages for interference with contract or business relationship, 44 A.L.R.4th 1078
Recovery based on tortfeasor's profits in action for procuring breach of contract, 5 A.L.R.4th 1276
Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Interference § 37 (Complaint, petition, or declaration -- To enjoin interference with
construction and operation of business after arbitrary denial of application for building permit)
Fla. Jur. 2d, Injunctions § 48.
n2n2 Fla. Jur. 2d, Injunctions § 48.
n3n3 Puga v. Suave Shoe Corp., 427 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
Page 51 of 51
Source: WEST GROUP
End of Document

Tortious INterference With Business Relationship

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tortious INterference With Business Relationship

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tortious INterference With Business Relationship

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

32 Fla Jur Interference § 1

Mitchell J. Waldman, J.D.

§ 1 Interference with advantageous business relationship, generally

n1n1 West's Key Number Digest, Torts [westkey]211, 241

Liability in tort for interference with attorney-client relationship, 90 A.L.R.4th 621

Business interruption, without physical damage, as actionable, 65 A.L.R.4th 1126

Liability for interference with at will business relationship, 5 A.L.R.4th 9

Liability for interference with franchise, 97 A.L.R.3d 890

As to privileged or justified interferences, see §§ 15, 16.

As to elements of interference with a business relationship, generally, see § 4.

Florida Jurisprudence 2D Copyright © 2020 West Group

Mitchell J. Waldman, J.D.

§ 2 Distinction from interference with contract; requirements in action for

n1n1 West's Key Number Digest, Torts [westkey]210, 213

As to tortious interference with contracts, generally, see §§ 9 to 14.

Florida Jurisprudence 2D Copyright © 2020 West Group

Mitchell J. Waldman, J.D.

§ 3 Requirement that interfering party was third party or stranger to

n1n1 West's Key Number Digest, Torts [westkey]228, 254

Observation: In the context of a managerial or supervisory employee terminating a plaintiff's employment, an

n7n7 Alexis v. Ventura, 66 So. 3d 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).

Florida Jurisprudence 2D Copyright © 2020 West Group

Mitchell J. Waldman, J.D.

§ 4 Elements, generally; required allegations and proof

As to interference with contracts, generally, see §§ 9 to 14.

Florida Jurisprudence 2D Copyright © 2020 West Group

Mitchell J. Waldman, J.D.

n1n1 West's Key Number Digest, Torts [westkey]214

Pakonis v. Clark, 156 So. 3d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).

n11n11 Burge v. Ferguson, 619 F. Supp. 2d 1225 (M.D. Fla. 2008).

Florida Jurisprudence 2D Copyright © 2020 West Group

Mitchell J. Waldman, J.D.

§ 6 Nature and intent of interference

Florida Jurisprudence 2D Copyright © 2020 West Group

Mitchell J. Waldman, J.D.

§ 7 Necessity of malice or ill will

n1n1 West's Key Number Digest, Torts [westkey]215

Florida Jurisprudence 2D Copyright © 2020 West Group

Mitchell J. Waldman, J.D.

n1n1 West's Key Number Digest, Torts [westkey]251

Fla. Jur. 2d, Injunctions § 48.

n2n2 Fla. Jur. 2d, Injunctions § 48.

Florida Jurisprudence 2D Copyright © 2020 West Group

You might also like