Source: https://www.floridalegalblog.org/2009/07/interested-third-party-cannot-be-liable.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 02:45:04+00:00

Document:
In Palm Beach County Health Care District v. Professional Medical Education, Inc. v. Davis (4D07-4170), the Fourth DCA held that an interested third-party to a contract cannot be liable for tortious interference.
The court held the tortious interference claim failed because the interference was not unjustified, a required element of tortious interference.
Under Florida law, a defendant is not a stranger to a business relationship, and thus cannot be held liable for tortious interference, when it has a supervisory interest in how the relationship is conducted or a potential financial interest in how a contract is performed.
Under the law of tortious interference, the District is not a “stranger” to any contract that it ultimately will fund. As the caretaker of public money raised by taxes, the District has an interest in insuring that public funds are spent for a proper purpose and in seeing that the money is spent wisely and prudently. To allow the tort of interference to apply in this case would b e to discourage the District from being an aggressive caretaker of public funds.
This holding is consistent with the rationale behind the tort. The cause of action for tortious interference with a business relationship “recognizes that economic relations are entitled to freedom from unreasonable interference.” United Yacht Brokers, Inc. v. Gillespie, 377 So. 2d 668, 672 (Fla. 1979). The point of a business relationship is to advance the interests of the parties involved. Tortious interference protects the interests of parties to an agreement against interference by outsiders, who would not be liable otherwise for breach. In the case of an interested third-party, the contractual interests that tortious interference is intended to protect include the interests of the third-party with respect to the contract. See 2 Dan B. Dobbs, The Law of Torts, § 449 (2001); RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 769 (1979). An interested third-party accused of tortious interference is essentially “interfering” with its own interests. This is not interference; it is freedom of contract.
[Finally, in a footnote the court stated:] We note that another panel of this court recently applied the doctrine of absolute immunity to bar an action for tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship against a City and its employees. See City of Stuart v. Monds, No. 4D08-4740 (Fla. 4th DCA May 13, 2009). This would be a separate ground supporting a judgment for the District on the tortious interference count.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 449
 § 769
 v.