The court granted TMC's motion for summary judgment on Count III as well. Sterling's Count II alleged that the defendants' steering of consumers to CMC tortiously interfered with Sterling's prospective economic relationship with both TMC and potential customers. The district court noted that the defendants had directed loan applications to CMC and had paid higher commissions on loans placed there. However, such conduct, the court reasoned, could not form the basis of a tortious interference claim in this case. As an alternative basis for its holding, the district court stated that the dispute was not covered by tort principles because a party could not tortiously interfere with its own contract.
Sterling appeals the district court's determinations.
I claim that TMC's attempt to discourage FSRs from offering Sterling's loans and TMC's premature termination of Sterling's relationship constituted a breach of contract. As such, the court concluded that any actions by TMC that might have inhibited referral could not violate the contract. However, Sterling argues, and we agree, that the clause setting forth TMC's responsibilities is ambiguous. According to Sterling's submission, it expected and was entitled to participate in a fair competition to attract borrowers. TMC, through its FSRs, would then display those rates to consumers.