Opinion ID: 1235229
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Tort Claim of Interference with Prospective Business Advantage.

Text: A & A challenges the sufficiency of the evidence of their alleged interference with a prospective business advantage (or occasionally in its argument as interference with a contract). We have stated the requirements for the tort of interference with a prospective business contract: Interference with a prospective contract is an intentional tort which requires a showing that the sole or predominant purpose of the actor's conduct was to financially injure or destroy the plaintiff. The tort requires plaintiff to prove the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. The plaintiff had a prospective contractual relationship with a third person. 2. The defendant knew of the prospective relationship. 3. The defendant intentionally and improperly interfered with the relationship in one or more particulars. 4. The interference caused either the third party not to enter into or to continue the relationship or that the interference prevented the plaintiff from entering into or continuing the relationship. 5. The amount of damage. Nesler [v. Fisher & Co., 452 N.W.2d 191,] 198-99 [(Iowa 1990)]. If a defendant acts for two or more purposes, his improper purpose must predominate in order to create liability. Willey, 541 N.W.2d at 526-27 (citations omitted). A & A does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence as to requirements 1, 2, 4 or 5. However, it challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on the third requirement: that the defendant intentionally and improperly interfered with the relationship in one or more particulars. See id. at 527 (quoting Nesler, 452 N.W.2d at 198-99). The jury was instructed on the elements of this tort as set out above. The court further instructed that the interference must be with the predominant purpose of financially harming or destroying the plaintiffs' business. See id. (if defendant acts for two or more purposes, his improper purpose must predominate) (emphasis added). Much of the evidence on the interference claim overlapped with the evidence of unreasonableness in A & A's refusal to extend the contract's time as discussed in Division IV(B). The plaintiffs testified that A & A's personnel were envious of the plaintiffs' practice and resentful of the plaintiffs' public criticism of the peer-review system. After the final deadline, A & A offered contracts to five of the eight independent contractors, but did not offer one to these plaintiffs. We conclude that there was substantial evidence for the jury to find an improper motive, retaliation against the plaintiffs, and to find that this improper motive predominated.