Opinion ID: 1345592
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the petition adequately states a claim for tortious interference with a contract under the oklahoma pleading code.

Text: The law recognizes the right to transact one's lawful business without unjustified interference. Any malicious interference with such business is an unlawful act and an actionable wrong. [1] An action for tortious interference of contract arises when one maliciously interferes in a contract between two parties inducing one of them to break the contract to the detriment of the other. [2] USF & G, relying on Mac Adjustment, Inc. v. Property Loss Research Bureau, 595 P.2d 427-28 (Okla. 1979), asserts that Niemeyer failed to plead specific facts demonstrating that the dissemination of false information was not justified, privileged or excused. Niemeyer maintains that under liberal pleading rules, her petition is sufficient to state a cause of action. [3] Niemeyer alleged in her petition that USF & G had tortiously interfered with her underinsured motorist contract to her detriment. The Oklahoma Pleading Code, 12 O.S.Supp. 1984 § 2001, et seq., does not require a plaintiff to set out in detail the facts upon which the claim is based. Notice pleading under the Code merely requires a short and plain statement of the claim which will give the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff's claim and the grounds upon which it rests. [4] [See the appendix of forms, 12 O.S.Supp. 1984 §§ 2026, 2027.] Title 12 O.S.Supp. 1984 § 2008(F) provides that pleadings shall be construed to do substantial justice. [5] In assessing the sufficiency of the petition, the general rule is that a petition should not be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim which would entitle her to relief. [6] With the exception of fraud, mistake, denial of performance, and special damages, [7] Oklahoma no longer requires strict compliance with terms of art and legal phraseology when pleading a cause of action. Ten years before the 1984 Pleading Code was adopted, we held in Crystal Gas Co. v. Oklahoma Natural Gas Co., 529 P.2d 987, 990 (Okla. 1974), a case in which the plaintiff sought to recover damages for interference with contractual and business relations, that the plaintiff must prove that the defendant's wrongful acts were the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. However, we recognized that the plaintiff could plead causation in general terms. Obviously, there is a difference between the burden of proof in a claim for tortious interference with contract, and with what is necessary to allege its commission. [8] The archaic rules of code pleading have been replaced by the 1984 Code of Civil Procedure, thus placing the spirit of the law above strict compliance with the letter of the law. [9] Based on these statutory provisions, we find that the petition states a claim for a tortious interference with a contract.