Opinion ID: 4465425
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: An issue of material fact remains as to ASI’s

Text: tortious interference with a contractual relationship claim. In order to recover for tortious interference with a contractual relationship, a plaintiff must show: 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 the breach. Winkler v. V.G. Reed & Sons, Inc., 638 N.E.2d 1228, 1235 (Ind. 1994). In this case, the parties disagree about how the absence of justification element must be proven. The Defendants argue that in order to prove absence of justification, the defendant must act intentionally and without a legitimate business purpose and that “the breach is malicious and exclusively directed to the injury and damage of another.” Morgan Asset Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 18S-PL-00437 | December 18, 2019 Page 10 of 12 Holding Corp. v. CoBank, ACB, 736 N.E.2d 1268, 1272 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (citation omitted). ASI argues that the appropriate standard is whether the conduct at issue is fair and reasonable and believes application of the Restatement factors is appropriate. See Coca-Cola Co. v. Babyback’s Int’l, Inc., 806 N.E.2d 37, 49-52 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), vacated on other grounds by Coca-Cola v. Babyback’s Int’l, Inc., 841 N.E.2d 557, 560 (Ind. 2006) (outlining the five Restatement elements for tortious interference with a business relationship). In the opinion below, our Court of Appeals acknowledged the differing approaches and found that the Restatement factors have consistently been applied to tortious interference cases. It found analyzing these factors would necessarily include analysis of both whether defendant acted maliciously and without a legitimate business purpose and whether defendant acted fairly and reasonably under the circumstances. We find that no matter which of the two standards for what constitutes the absence of justification element for tortious interference with a contractual relationship is applied to the facts of this case, there remains an issue of material fact so as to preclude summary judgment. As our Court of Appeals majority aptly noted, there is both evidence that HWC has a legitimate business purpose in recruiting ASI employees and also evidence that HWC targeted ASI for an improper purpose. In light of this conflicting evidence and because of our summary judgment standard, we find the trial court properly denied summary judgment on ASI’s claims of tortious interference.