Opinion ID: 394161
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendant J.A. Construction failed to provide adequate work area access to the plaintiff.

Text: C. Defendant J.A. Construction failed to provide door bucks and other items that were necessary for plaintiff to perform its work. D. Defendant J.A. Construction failed to coordinate the work of the other contractors. E. Defendant J.A. Construction failed to properly schedule the work. F. Defendant J.A. Construction unreasonably caused plaintiff to work in the winter in spite of the specific contractual representation to the contrary. G. Defendant J.A. Construction refused, in bad faith, to negotiate equitable adjustments with the plaintiff for extra work and costs it was clearly, under the contract, entitled to. H. Defendant J.A. Construction refused to grant proper time extensions to the plaintiff. I. Defendant J.A. Construction failed to deal with plaintiff in good faith to mitigate its damages. J. Defendant J.A. Construction actively interfered with plaintiff's prosecution of its work. K. Defendant J.A. Construction failed to cause plaintiff to receive its progress payments on a timely basis. L. Defendant J.A. Construction rendered plaintiff's work impossible to perform. 31 On March 14, 1978, defendant Clark terminated the Agreement. The termination of the Agreement was wrongful for the following reasons: A. Defendant Clark and defendant J.A. Construction were in default of their obligations as hereinabove alleged at the time said termination occurred. B. Defendant Clark and defendant J.A. Construction's acts, which constitute a breach of the Agreement, amounted also to an abandonment of the Agreement. Count IV of Hughes' amended complaint repeats the factual allegations set forth in Count III in support of the claim that J.A. negligently interfered with the contractual relationship between Clark and Hughes. 8 Indiana recognizes the tort of interference with a contract relationship by inducing breach of contract. Monarch Industrial Towel and Uniform Rental, Inc. v. Model Coverall Service, Inc., 381 N.E.2d 1098 (Ind.Ct.App.1978). The elements of this tort are as follows: (1) existence of a valid and enforceable contract; (2) defendant's knowledge of the existence of the contract; (3) defendant's intentional inducement of breach of the contract; (4) the absence of justification; and (5) damages resulting from defendant's wrongful inducement of breach. Id. at 1099. See also Claise v. Bernardi, 413 N.E.2d 609 (Ind.Ct.App.1980); Daly v. Nau, 167 Ind.App. 541, 339 N.E.2d 71 (1976); Helvey v. O'Neill, 153 Ind.App. 635, 288 N.E.2d 553 (1972). Although we need not decide the question, it appears to us to be at best uncertain whether the operative facts alleged in Hughes' complaint are sufficient to suggest that J.A. intentionally induced Clark to breach its contract with Hughes. Rather, as set forth in Hughes' Specific Contentions, the facts as alleged appear to suggest only that the contract was breached by Clark, through its agent J.A., which in turn suggests breach of the Clark-James Associates contract (which imposed the duties in question on James Associates) and, in turn, of the James Associates-J.A. contract (which next imposed the relevant duties on J.A.). It is doubtful whether an agent's acts within the scope of his employment would ever constitute tortious interference with his principal's contract with a third party. Cf. Daly v. Nau, 339 N.E.2d at 76 n.6 (It has also been recognized that an officer or director of a corporation is not liable for inducing the corporation's breach of its contract if the officer or director acts within the scope of his official duties on behalf of the corporation and not as an individual for his own advantage). 9 Even assuming that Hughes' complaint states a cause of action for tortious interference with contract, we believe Hughes, in the peculiar circumstances before us, is estopped from denying J.A. the benefit of the arbitration clause with regard to claims that are as intimately founded in and intertwined with the underlying contract obligations as Hughes' claims appear to be here. The outcome urged by Hughes would have the tail wagging the dog, since it would allow a party to defeat an otherwise valid arbitration clause simply by alleging that an agent of the party seeking arbitration has improperly performed certain duties under the contract and thereby committed a tort that is so integrally related to the subject of arbitration between the principal parties as to constitute a bar to such arbitration