Opinion ID: 2775233
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: reconsideration of the improper-purpose

Text: DOCTRINE IS PROPERLY BEFORE THE COURT ¶16 In Pratt v. Prodata, Inc., we declined to reconsider our support for improper-purpose liability because the parties had not asked us to do so and the question was therefore not properly presented. 885 P.2d 786, 789 n.3 (Utah 1994) (opinion of Zimmerman, C.J.). The same obstacle does not exist in this case. ¶17 Admittedly, Johndrow’s first brief did not focus on reconsideration of the improper-purpose doctrine, instead arguing that we should follow the Restatement and declare that truth is an absolute defense to tortious interference liability. See RESTATEMENT (SECOND ) OF TORTS § 772(a) (1979). It did, however, explain at some length “the difficulties associated with the improper purpose prong” and acknowledged that these difficulties could lead the court to “undertake a complete reconsideration” of it. In particular, it pointed out how “problematic” it is to “permit[] liability for otherwise legal and permissible conduct if the defendant can be said to have acted with ‘ill will’ towards the plaintiff.” Further, it argued that a growing number of states have limited or rejected claims based solely on improper purpose. ¶18 The Eldridges’ brief seized on this discussion, accusing Johndrow of demanding the abandonment of improper-purpose liability and offering a full-throated defense of the doctrine: “Essentially, Johndrow asks this Court to reverse itself and impose a black-letter and inflexible standard that would protect extremely malicious conduct . . . . The improper purpose prong as currently utilized and applied by Utah courts strikes a fair and appropriate balance between the interests of the various parties . . . .” Johndrow’s reply brief disclaimed that reconsideration of improper-purpose liability was necessary to its case, but it repeated its arguments against the doctrine and expressly invited the court to reconsider it. ¶19 The reconsideration of improper-purpose liability has thus been explicitly raised by the parties and adequately argued in their briefs. We may therefore reach this issue. 5 ELDRIDGE v. JOHNDROW Opinion of the Court