Opinion ID: 2601614
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Is Excel Entitled to Maintain Its Claim of Tortious Interference with Contract?

Text: [¶ 20] Excel argues that even courts rigorously applying the economic loss rule do not bar claims based on intentional tort theories, and therefore contends that it can pursue a claim against HKM for tortiously interfering with its contract with the Town of Lovell. The agreement between HKM and the Town of Lovell provided that HKM was to act as the town's agent in administering the construction contract, including making determinations concerning change orders, etc. The parties agree that HKM was acting as the Town of Lovell's agent in that respect, and the amended complaint filed by Excel specifically alleges that HKM acted as Lovell's [agent] throughout the project. Nowhere in Excel's amended complaint or in the briefing of the parties does Excel suggest that HKM acted outside the scope of its duties as the Town of Lovell's agent in any of the actions complained of. [¶ 21] It has long been the rule in this state and elsewhere that a claim for intentional interference with contract cannot survive if it involves an assertion that an agent for one party to the contract interfered with it. In Kvenild v. Taylor, 594 P.2d 972 (Wyo. 1979), the plaintiffs claimed that a real estate agent interfered with their contractual rights to purchase a piece of property by recommending that her principal sell the real property to another buyer. This Court reversed a judgment for money damages in favor of the plaintiffs because the real estate agent was acting as the sellers' agent. It quoted Board of Trustees of Weston Cty. Sch. Dist. # 1 v. Holso, 584 P.2d 1009, 1017 (Wyo.1978), to this effect: These theories [intentional interference with contract and intentional interference with prospective advantage], however, do not apply to actions between parties to an existing contractthey lie only against outsiders who interfere with contractual expectancies of others. Kvenild, 594 P.2d at 977. [¶ 22] The Court reached the same result in Chasson v. Community Action of Laramie County, Inc., 768 P.2d 572, 579-580 (Wyo. 1989), holding that corporate officers could not be held liable for interference with the contract of an employee of the corporation. In Birt v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., 2003 WY 102, ¶ 69, 75 P.3d 640, 662 (Wyo. 2003), the holding in Kvenild was summarized to be that a vendor and her real estate agent could not be liable for tortious interference with a contract to which vendor was a party. [¶ 23] In this case, HKM was charged with determining compliance with the contract, approving change orders, and otherwise serving as decision-maker for the Town of Lovell by the express terms of its agreement. HKM therefore acted not only as an agent, but as an agent with the power to make decisions on behalf of the town. Its actions, if they breached the contract, may entitle Excel to recover against the town for that breach, but Excel may not recover from HKM on a theory of intentional interference with a contract for actions taken as the town's agent. The trial court properly granted summary judgment on this claim, although it did so for different reasons.