Court Opinion

ID: 9656289
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:45:42.61213+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:31.195964
License: Public Domain

M. J. Kelly, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. The general rule of law is that one may not tortiously interfere with one’s own contract. Wilkinson v Powe, 300 Mich 275; 1 NW2d 539 (1942); Prosser, Torts (4th ed), § 129, p 934. Paragraph 2 of the complaint filed in this case by plaintiffs alleges *761that "Defendant David L. Marcum at all times relevant herein was the agent[s], servant and employee of ITT, acting within the scope of his authority”. In their answer, defendants admitted this agency relationship. I would hold plaintiffs to this allegation, incorporated by reference in their count of tortious interference with a business contract, notwithstanding what may appear to be other inconsistent and inartfully drafted theories. Taking as true, as plaintiffs allege, that defendant Marcum acted within the scope of his employment in terminating plaintiff Mark Stack, I would find that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Wilkinson v Powe, supra.
The majority relies on Seven D Enterprises, Ltd v Fonzi, 438 F Supp 161 (ED Mich, 1977), for the proposition that a corporate employee and officer can be guilty of tortious interference with a contract to which his employer is a party. I think Seven D Enterprises is distinguishable in that the defendant-interferor in that action, Angelo Fonzi, acted in two separate capacities. Fonzi was vice-president and general manager of Interstate Motor Freight Systems, which contracted for the lease of certain equipment from Seven D. Fonzi was also the alter ego or sole shareholder of Transportation Management Corporation which was the beneficiary of the breach and termination of the contracts involved. In inducing Interstate’s breach of the contract, Fonzi was obviously acting in his capacity as a corporate officer of Transportation. In any event, Seven D Enterprises is not binding precedent on this Court and, to the extent that it conflicts with the rule of Wilkinson v Powe, supra, I would decline to follow it.
I would affirm.