Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 277

524US1

Unit: $U84

[09-06-00 20:39:07] PAGES PGT: OPIN

232

AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO.
v. CENTRAL OFFICE TELEPHONE, INC.
Stevens, J., dissenting

allegation of slamming in respondent’s amended complaint; 1
in the District Court, AT&T’s trial counsel took issue with
respondent’s effort to make slamming “a big part of this
case,” id., at 2170, and said in closing argument that slam-
ming “is the basis for this intentional interference” claim,
id., at 2921; and nothing in the jury instructions remotely
suggested that the tort claim required proof of broken prom-
ises by AT&T to provide additional services. Respondent’s
evidence easily ﬁts within the deﬁnition of intentional inter-
ference set forth in the jury charge:

“COT asserts that AT&T intentionally interfered with
its business relations and expectations of future busi-
ness relations with its customers, the end users of its
SDN service.
In order to prevail on this claim, COT
must prove by a preponderance of the evidence, one,
that COT had business relations with the probability of
future economic beneﬁt. Two, that AT&T was aware
of the relationships and expectation of future beneﬁts.
Three, that AT&T intentionally interfered with COT’s
business relations. Four, that AT&T interfered for an
improper motive or by using improper means. And,
ﬁve, that COT suffered economic injury as a result of
the interference.” App. 71.

It may be the fact that the billing disclosures and slam-
ming were the consequence of negligence rather than a delib-
erate plan to take over a network of customers that respond-
ent had developed, but the jury concluded otherwise.
It
found that petitioner acted intentionally and willfully in in-
terfering with respondent’s business relations. See ibid.2
That ﬁnding is doubly signiﬁcant.

1 “[D]espite repeated requests by COT to AT&T, AT&T failed to rectify
incidents of unauthorized changes made in the designated carriers (‘slam-
ming’) of COT’s customers.” App. 28.

2 The jury’s $13 million damages award, reduced by the Magistrate
Judge to $1.154 million, did not differentiate between the contract and
tort claims.