Court Opinion

ID: 9731017
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:30:43.654115+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:12.363396
License: Public Domain

HUDSON, Justice,
dissenting.
When appellant generated and transmitted invoices to appellee’s policyholders, ap-pellee was legally obliged to accept or reject such claims in a timely manner. Tex. Ins. Code Ann. art. 21.55 (Vernon Supp. 1998). After conducting an investigation, appellee concluded the bills were either unfounded or had previously been paid. Accordingly, appellee rejected the claims, notified both its policyholders and the affected hospitals, and set forth its reasons for rejection. Appellee contends appellant’s actions tortiously interfered with its contractual relations with a number of hospitals.
Justification is an affirmative defense to tortious interference with contractual relations. See Texas Beef Cattle Co. v. Green, 921 S.W.2d 203, 211 (Tex.1996). It is based on either the exercise of (1) one’s own legal rights or (2) a good-faith claim to a color-able legal right, even though that claim ultimately proves to be mistaken. Here, appellee was statutorily required to make a speedy decision on whether or not to pay the claims. When it rejected the claims, I believe appellee also had to provide some explanation for the rejection. Because I believe appellee established, as a matter of law, its affirmative defense of justification, I respectfully dissent.