Attorneys' fees in Tortious Interference Suits

Can attorneys’ fees be recovered on a claim for tortious interference?

Generally in current litigation, attorneys’ fees are not recoverable on tort claims and are typically only recoverable if provided for by statute or in a contract.  Also generally, unless provided for by statute or by contract of the parties, attorneys’ fees incurred by a party in older litigation are not recoverable against the present adversary in new, current litigation.  However, at least one Texas appellate court has recognized an equitable exception to this general rule for lawsuits based on tortious interference.  See Texas Beef Cattle Co. v. Green, 883 S.W.2d 415, 430 (Tex. App.  – Beaumont 1994) rev'd on other grounds, 921 S.W.2d 203 (Tex. 1996).  In this case, the Beaumont court of appeals held that necessary and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs even though expended and incurred in previous litigation can be recovered as proper damages in a later suit based on tortious interference of contract if the natural and proximate results and consequences of prior wrongful acts had been to involve the plaintiff in litigation with and against third parties and other parties.

Employee's Personal Liability for Tortious Interference

Can a corporate officer be personally liable for tortious interference for his or her acts on behalf of the corporation?

It has long been the law in Texas that "a corporate agent is personally liable for his own fraudulent or tortious acts."  Miller v. Keyser, 90 S.W.3d 712, 717 (Tex. 2002).  If a corporate agent directs or participates in a tort during his employment, he faces personal liability for the tortious act. Leyendecker & Assocs., Inc. v. Wechter, 683 S.W.2d 369, 375 (Tex. 1984).  Therefore, regardless of whether the person performed the tortious acts in his or her capacity as an officer, he or she can still face personal liability for those acts.  See Leyendecker & Assocs., Inc. v. Wechter, 683 S.W.2d 369, 375 (Tex. 1984).

Proof Needed for Tortious Interference with a Prospective Contract

What must one prove for a claim of tortious interference with a prospective contract?

To prove a cause of action for tortious interference with a prospective contract, a claimant must establish the following elements: "(1) a reasonable probability that the parties would have entered into a business relationship; (2) an intentional, malicious intervention or an independently tortious or unlawful act performed by the defendant with a conscious desire to prevent the relationship from occurring or with knowledge that the interference was certain or substantially likely to occur as a result of its conduct; (3) a lack of privilege or justification for the defendant's actions; and (4) actual harm or damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the defendant's interference, i.e., the defendant's actions prevented the relationship from occurring."  Tex. Integrated Conveyor Sys., Inc. v. Innovative Conveyor Concepts, Inc., 300 S.W.3d 348, 367 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2009, pet. denied);  Anderton v. Cawley, 378 S.W.3d 38, 48 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2012, no pet.).

Generally, No Recovery of Mental Anguish on a Tortious Interference with Contract Claim

Can mental anguish damages be recovered on a claim for tortious interference with a contract?

Generally, mental anguish damages are not recoverable on a claim for tortious interference with a contract.  This is because the measure of actual damages for tortious interference with a contract is the same as the measure of damages for breach of the interfered-with contract, and mental anguish damages generally are not available for breach  of a contract.  Mental anguish damages are available in "a very limited number of contracts dealing with intensely emotional noncommercial subjects such as preparing a corpse for burial or delivering news of a family emergency."  See City of Tyler v. Likes, 962 S.W.2d 489, 496 (Tex. 1997).

Tortious Interference with Property Rights

Claims for tortious interference are not limited to interference with contract rights.

“Any intentional invasion of, or interference with, property, property rights, personal rights or personal liberties causing injury without just cause or excuse is an actionable tort.”  See King v. Acker, 725 S.W.2d 750, 754 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no pet.).  A cause of action for tortious interference with the peaceful use and enjoyment of property is a claim for intentional interference with property rights. See Ski River Dev., Inc. v. McCalla, 167 S.W.3d 121, 140 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, pet. denied).

Tortious Interference with the Employer-Employee Relationship

Can an employer claim someone else tortiously interfered with the at will relationship between the employer and his employees?  

It is well settled that a cause of action exists for tortious interference with an employment relationship terminable at will.  See Sterner v. Marathon Oil Co., 767 S.W.2d 686, 689 (Tex. 1989).

Legal Justification or Privilege as a Defense to Tortious Interference Claims

Justification or excuse is an affirmative defense to a tortious interference claim.

Legal justification or privilege is an affirmative defense to tortious interference with contract.  "The party asserting this privilege does not deny the interference but rather seeks to avoid liability based upon a claimed interest that is being impaired or destroyed by the plaintiff's contract."  Under this defense, "one is privileged to interfere with another's contract (1) if it is done in a bona fide exercise of his own rights, or (2) if he has an equal or superior right in the subject matter to that of the other party."  See Sterner v. Marathon Oil Co., 767 S.W.2d 686, 689-91 (Tex. 1989).

Proving Tortious Interference with an Existing Contract

What must a plaintiff prove when claiming tortious interference with an existing contract?

To recover for a tortious interference with an existing contract, a plaintiff must prove: (1) the existence of a contract subject to interference; (2) a willful and intentional act of interference; (3) that the act was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's damages; and (4) actual damage or loss.  See Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 207 (Tex. 2002).  Proximate cause is that cause which in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any new and independent cause, produces the injury and without which the injury would not have occurred.  See Phoenix Refining Co. v. Tips, 125 Tex. 69, 81 S.W.2d 60, 61 (Tex. 1935); see also Cook Consultants, Inc. v. Larson, 700 S.W.2d 231, 236 (Tex. App. – Dallas 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.).  “To show proximate cause, a plaintiff must allege that 'the defendant took an active part in persuading a party to a contract to breach it.  Merely entering into a contract with a party with the knowledge of that party's contractual obligations to someone else is not the same as inducing a breach.  It is necessary that there be some act of interference or of persuading a party to breach, for example by offering better terms or other incentives, for tort liability to arise.”  M-I LLC v. Stelly, 733 F. Supp. 2d 759, 775 (S.D. Tex. 2010).  A plaintiff is not limited to showing the contract was actually breached.  Any interference that makes performance more burdensome or difficult or of less or no value to the one entitled to performance is actionable.  See Khan v. GBAK Props, Inc., 371 S.W.3d 347, 359-60 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.).

Statute of Limitations for Tortious Interference with Existing Contract

If someone tortiously interferes with a contract that I am a party to, is there a limited time within which I must file a lawsuit?

Yes.  As a general principle of Texas law, tortious interference with an existing contract has a two-year limitations period.  See First Nat'l Bank of Eagle Pass v. Levine, 721 S.W.2d 287, 289 (Tex. 1986); see also Khan v. GBAK Props., Inc., 371 S.W.3d 347, 356 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.).