Case Title: Roderick Walls and Walls & Cooper, LLC v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Nikki Breedlove

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1050205

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2007-10-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
Rel: 10/12/2007
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-
0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2007-2008
____________________
1050205
____________________
Roderick Walls and Walls & Cooper, LLC
v.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Nikki
Breedlove
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court 
(CV-02-504)
PARKER, Justice.
Background
This appeal has its genesis in a settlement of a
personal-injury 
action. 
State 
Farm 
Mutual 
Automobile 
Insurance
Company ("State Farm") and its agent, Nikki Breedlove, the
defendants below, settled a personal-injury claim directly
1050205
2
with a client of Roderick Walls, a lawyer, and Walls & Cooper,
LLC ("WC"), Walls's law firm, the plaintiffs below. On January
24, 2002, Walls and WC filed a three-count complaint against
State Farm and Breedlove in the Jefferson Circuit Court.
Count one asserted a claim of intentional interference with a
business relationship; count two asserted a claim of civil
conspiracy; and count three asserted a claim of breach of
contract. 
The case went to trial during the week of October 6,
2003; however, the jury was unable to reach a unanimous
decision, and a mistrial was declared. On August 8, 2005, the
case was again tried before a jury. At the close of Walls and
WC's case-in-chief, State Farm and Breedlove filed a motion
for a judgment as a matter of law ("JML"). After hearing
arguments, the trial court entered a JML for State Farm and
Breedlove. The trial court issued the following order on
August 9, 2005:
 "After hearing testimony from [Walls and WC]
and reviewing the evidence introduced at trial
during [Walls and WC's] case-in-chief, this court
found that [Walls and WC] failed to meet [their]
burden to prove the elements required for [their]
claim of tortious interference with a business
relation. Specifically, 
the 
intentional 
interference
element. Therefore, this Court on [State Farm and
1050205
3
Breedlove's] motion hereby ENTERS a [JML] for the
Defendants, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company and Nikki Breedlove."
(Emphasis added.) Walls and WC filed a motion to alter, amend,
or vacate the judgment. The trial court denied this motion on
September 26, 2005. This appeal followed.
Standard of Review 
"When reviewing a ruling on a motion for a JML,
this Court uses the same standard the trial court
used initially in deciding whether to grant or deny
the motion for a JML. Palm Harbor Homes, Inc. v.
Crawford, 689 So. 2d 3 (Ala. 1997). Regarding
questions of fact, the ultimate question is whether
the nonmovant has presented sufficient evidence to
allow the case to be submitted to the jury for a
factual resolution. Carter v. Henderson, 598 So. 2d
1350 (Ala. 1992). The nonmovant must have presented
substantial evidence in order to withstand a motion
for a JML. See § 12-21-12, Ala. Code 1975; West v.
Founders Life assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So. 2d
870, 871 (Ala. 1989). A reviewing court must
determine whether the party who bears the burden of
proof has produced substantial evidence creating a
factual dispute requiring resolution by the jury.
Carter, 598 So. 2d at 1353. In reviewing a ruling on
a motion for a JML, this Court views the evidence in
the light most favorable to the nonmovant and
entertains such reasonable inferences as the jury
would have been free to draw. Id. Regarding a
question of law, however, this Court indulges no
presumption of correctness as to the trial court's
ruling. Ricwil, Inc. v. S.L. Pappas & Co., 599 So.
2d 1126 (Ala. 1992)."
Waddell & Reed, Inc. v. United Investors Life Ins. Co., 875
So. 2d 1143, 1152 (Ala. 2003).
1050205
4
  Analysis
Walls and WC raise one issue to this Court: "Whether
[Walls and WC] presented substantial evidence of [State Farm
and Breedlove's] intentional interference with a business
relationship where the record reveals that Defendant Breedlove
told [Walls and WC's] client that [State Farm and Breedlove]
would settle the client's claim directly with the client if
the client terminated the contract between [Walls and WC] and
the client." Walls and WC's brief at 6. 
The tort of intentional interference with a business
relationship comprises five elements. The plaintiff alleging
intentional interference with a business relationship is
required to prove:
1.
The existence of a contract or a business relation;
2.
The defendant's knowledge of the contract or
business relation;
3.
Intentional interference by the defendant with the
contract or business relation;
4.
The absence of justification for the defendant's
interference; and
5.
Damage to the plaintiff as a result of the
defendant's interference.
1050205
5
Waddell & Reed, 875 So. 2d at 1153 (citing Parsons v. Aaron,
849 So. 2d 932, 946 (Ala. 2002)).
Walls and WC allege that State Farm and Breedlove
intentionally interfered  with a business relationship that
existed between Walls and WC, on the one hand, and their
client, on the other. Walls and WC's brief at 11. State Farm
and Breedlove state that, before Breedlove initiated the
contact with Walls's client, the client had already dismissed
Walls as her attorney by sending Walls a letter terminating
his 
employment 
because, 
they 
say, 
he 
had 
not 
been
communicating with her. State Farm and Breedlove's brief at 5.
Walls and WC stated that before Breedlove initiated contact
with the client, they had not sent a letter of disengagement
to State Farm and Breedlove indicating that they were no
longer representing the client in the personal-injury action.
Walls and WC's brief at 6.  Walls and WC state "that the
record 
contains 
substantial 
evidence 
establishing 
the
intentional-interference element of their claim." Walls and
WC's brief at 11. In the instant case, Walls testified that
Breedlove initiated the contact with his client to induce her
to terminate her contract with Walls and WC. Walls further
1050205
6
testified that Breedlove told the client that Breedlove would
settle the client's personal-injury claim directly with the
client if she fired Walls and WC, her lawyers. Walls alleges
that Breedlove "offered to settle [the client's] claim
directly with her, to [Walls and WC's] detriment, if [the
client] would terminate her contract with [Walls and WC]."
Walls and WC's brief at 12. 
Walls and WC contend that, in Ex parte Henderson, 732 So.
2d 295, 298 (Ala. 1999), this Court "noted that a showing of
a 'strong financial motive on the part of the defendants'
supports a finding of intentional interference." Walls and
WC's brief at 12. Walls testified that based on his experience
he calculated that his client's claim had a value of about
$25,000. State Farm and Breedlove settled the claim with the
client for $4,500. Walls testified that State Farm and
Breedlove were motivated to settle the personal-injury claim
directly with the client in order to save State Farm money.
Walls and WC's argument is simply that State Farm,
through its agent, Breedlove, induced the client to fire Walls
and WC so that they could settle the personal-injury action
with the client directly. Evidence of Breedlove's conversation
1050205
7
with the client, prior to the client's writing the letter to
Walls terminating his employment, is substantial  evidence
creating a factual dispute as to whether State Farm and
Breedlove intentionally interfered with the relationship
between Walls and WC and their client, an issue requiring
resolution by the jury. State Farm and Breedlove fail to
refute this testimony in their brief on appeal and, instead,
focus on what occurred after the client sent the letter.   
Based upon our review of the evidence presented at trial,
we find that Walls and WC "produced substantial evidence
creating a factual dispute requiring resolution by the jury."
Waddell & Reed, 875 So. 2d at 1152 (citing Carter v.
Henderson, 598 So. 2d 1350, 1353 (Ala. 1992)). Therefore, the
judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case remanded
for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Cobb, C.J., and See, Lyons, Woodall, Stuart, Smith, and
Bolin, JJ., concur. 
 Murdock, J., concurs in the result.