Opinion ID: 2165857
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Refusal to Deal

Text: Baptist first contends that it has an absolute right to refuse to deal with appellees and that it cannot be liable for a suit in tort for exercising its absolute right. As such, Baptist argues that any finding of a likelihood of success on the merits of a tortious-interference claim is in error. Appellees contend that Baptist raises its refusal-to-deal argument for the first time on appeal. In response, Baptist claims that it is raising no new concepts in the appeal, but that it has merely identified additional case law since it had the benefit of additional time to conduct research. We disagree. Upon review of the briefs presented to the circuit court, we believe Baptist is raising its refusal-to-deal argument for the first time on appeal. It is well settled that this court will not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See, e.g., Ford Motor Co. v. Arkansas Motor Vehicle Comm'n, 357 Ark. 125, 161 S.W.3d 788 (2004).