Opinion ID: 714979
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to Life Care's

Text: 15 Claim of Tortious Interference with a Contract 16 On March 2, 1994, the Defendants filed a motion which sought the entry of a summary judgment as to Life Care's claims of tortious interference with a contract. The Defendants argued that these claims were deficient as a matter of law because, in terminating Life Care as the managing agent, they were acting within the scope of their positions as general partners of Charles Town. The Defendants maintained that they, as agents of Charles Town, were not third parties to the management agreement and could not have tortiously interfered with the contractual relationship about which Life Care complained. In its opposition papers, Life Care contended that a general partner or agent could tortiously interfere with a partnership's contract if the act was committed with legal malice (i.e., not for the benefit of the partnership). Life Care claimed, in part, that the Defendants had failed to show that the termination of its services were in the best interests of Charles Town. 17 The district court granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed Life Care's claims of tortious interference after concluding that the Defendants were not third parties to the management contract inasmuch as they had acted within the scope of their authority as general partners. 2 18