law-tortious-interference with contract, business contract, or prospective contractual relations | cause of action |
justification defense to claim | affirmative defense of privilege, own protected superior right |
elements of contract | elements of breach of contract | noncompetes and nonsoliciation agreements | trade secrets
| trespass | TRO and temporary injunctions
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE ELEMENTS (SUPRME COURT CASE LAW)
The elements of tortious interference with contract are (1) existence of a contract subject to interference, (2) willful
and intentional interference, (3) interference that proximately caused damage, and (4) actual damage or loss.
Powell Indus., Inc. v. Allen, 985 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex. 1998).
What are the Elements of Tortious Interference
[ not tortuous ] Interference Claim in Texas? - HOUSTON CASES
The elements of a claim for tortious interference with a prospective business relationship
are (1) a reasonable probability that the plaintiff would have entered into a business
relationship; (2) an independently tortious or unlawful act by the defendant that prevented
the relationship from occurring; (3) the defendant did such act with a conscious desire to
prevent the relationship from occurring or the defendant knew the interference was certain
or substantially certain to occur as a result of the conduct; and (4) the plaintiff suffered
actual harm or damages as a result of the defendant's interference. Baty v. ProTech Ins.
Agency, 63 S.W.3d 841, 860 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. denied).
Fairchild v. Barron (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist] Jan. 30, 2009)(Alcala)
(summary judgment, tortious interference, motion to compel, estoppel)
AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Elsa Alcala
Before Chief Justice Radack, Justices Alcala and Hanks
01-07-00534-CV James W. Fairchild, Individually and in the name and right of Exeter Energy Services, L.P.,
and Fairchild & Wells, Inc. v. Thomas F. Barron, Tetra Prime, Inc., and John Wells, Individually
Appeal from 129th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Grant Dorfman
The elements of tortious interference with a contract are (1) the existence of a contract subject to interference; (2)
a willful and intentional act of interference; (3) that was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's damages; and (4) actual
damage or loss. Swank v. Sverdlin, 121 S.W.3d 785, 800 (Tex. App--Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied). To be
subject to liability, an actor must have knowledge of the contract or relation with which he is interfering and of the
fact that he is interfering with the performance of that contract. See Restatement (Second) of Torts §766 cmt. i;
see also Steinmetz & Assocs., Inc. v.Crow, 700 S.W.2d 276, 277-78 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.)
(noting that "one element of a cause of action for interference with contract or business relation is that the
interferer had actual knowledge of the contract or business relation in question, or knowledge of facts and
circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe in the existence of the contract or business
relationship")
WTG Gas Processing, LP v. ConocoPhillips Company (pdf) (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 2, 2010)
(Corrected superseding opinion by Seymore) (cross appeals, breach of contract and tortious-interference claims,
no contract formed, statute of frauds, summary judgment affirmed)
AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Charles Seymore
Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Anderson and Seymore
14-08-00019-CV WTG Gas Processing, LP v. ConocoPhillips Company, Targa Field Services, LLC, Targa
Resources Texas GP LLC, Targa Resouces, Inc., Targa Texas Field Services, Lp and Warburg Pincus, LLC
Appeal from 333rd District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Joseph J. Halbach
Defense of justification / privilege to occupy premises based on lease
Source: O'Kane v. Coleman (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] July 1, 2008)(Fowler)(lease law, theft liability act claim)
Claim of tortious interference with future business relationships. The elements of that claim are (1) a
reasonable probability that the parties would have entered into a contractual relationship; (2) an independently
tortious or unlawful act by the defendant that prevented the relationship from occurring; (3) the defendant did such
act with a conscious desire to prevent the relationship from occurring or knew the interference was certain or
substantially certain to occur as a result of his conduct; and (4) the plaintiff suffered actual harm or damage as a
result of the defendant's interference. Le Meridien Hotels & Resorts v. LaSalle Hotel Operating P=ship, I, L.P., 141
S.W.3d 870, 879 n.4 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2004, no pet.).
Summary judgment proof conclusively establishing appellees' defense of privilege.
The elements of tortious interference with contract are (1) the existence of a contract subject to
interference; (2) the occurrence of an act of interference that was willful and intentional; (3) the act was a
proximate cause of the claimant's damage; and (4) actual damage or loss occurred. Baty v. Protech Ins. Agency,
63 S.W.3d 841, 856-57 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. denied) (citing Powell Indus., Inc. v. Allen, 985
S.W.2d 455, 456 (Tex. 1998)). Even if the plaintiff establishes all the elements of a claim for tortious interference
with a contract, the defendant may avoid liability if it establishes the elements of the defense of justification. Id. at
857 (citing Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Fin. Review Servs., Inc., 29 S.W.3d 74, 77-78 (Tex. 2000)). "[T]he
justification defense can be based on the exercise of either (1) one's own legal rights or (2) a good-faith claim to a
colorable legal right, even though that claim ultimately proves to be mistaken." Fin. Review Servs., 29 S.W.3d at
80. If a trial court finds as a matter of law the defendant had a legal right to interfere with a contract, the
defendant has conclusively established the justification defense, and the motive is irrelevant. Id.
Tortious interference with prospective business relations
This court has previously outlined the apparent requirements to succeed on a claim for tortious interference with a
prospective business relationship:
(1) a reasonable probability that the plaintiff would have entered into a business relationship;
(2) an independently tortious or unlawful act by the defendant that prevented the relationship from occurring;
(3) the defendant did such act with a conscious desire to prevent the relationship from occurring or the defendant
knew the interference was certain or substantially certain to occur as a result of the conduct; and
(4) the plaintiff suffered actual harm or damages as a result of the defendant's interference.
Baty, 63 S.W.3d 841 at 860.
Barbarawi v. Ahmad (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] May 27, 2008)(Hedges) (breach of contract, tortious
interference with business, sale of restaurant)
AFFIRMED: Opinion by Chief Justice Hedges
Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Fowler and Boyce
14-07-00790-CV Aiman Barbarawi and Husam Barbarawi v. Adnan Ahmad
Appeal from 113th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Patricia Ann Hancock
Bluebonnet Petroleum, Inc. v. Kolkhorst Petroleum (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 9, 2008)(Substitute opinion
by Brown) (SJ, admissible evidence, no theft of theft of trade secrets, breach a fiduciary duty, tortious interference)
trade secrets, breach a fiduciary duty)
AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Brown
Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Brown and Boyce
14-07-00380-CV Bluebonnet Petroleum, Inc. v. Kolkhorst Petroleum Company, Inc.
Appeal from 335th District Court of Washington County
Trial Court Judge: Terry Flenniken
SP Midtown Ltd. v. Urban Storage, LLC (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] May 8, 2008)(Anderson) (summary
judgment, trade secrets, tortious interference)
SP Midtown, Ltd. v. Urban Storage, L.P., No. 14-07-00717-CV, 2008 WL 1991747 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.]
May 8, 2008, pet. denied) (mem. op.)
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED & REMANDED IN PART: Opinion by Justice Anderson
Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Anderson and Boyce
14-07-00717-CV SP Midtown Ltd. d/b/a Space Place Midtown v. Urban Storage, L.P. d/b/a Midtown Mini Storage
and d/b/a Midtown Mini Warehouse and d/b/a Midtown Self Storage , Midtown Storage, L.L.C. and The Jenkins
Organization, Inc.
Appeal from 80th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Lynn M. Bradshaw-Hull
O'Kane v. Coleman (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] July 1, 2008)(Fowler)(commercial leases, Theft Liability Act
claim, amendment of pleadings prior to hearing, tortious interference, defense of privilege, denial of motion for
continuance, admissions exclusion of summary judgment evidence, lease law, Theft Liability Act claim, amendment
of pleadings prior to hearing, tortious interference)
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED & REMANDED IN PART: Opinion by Justice Fowler
Before Justices Fowler, Frost and Seymore
14-06-00657-CV Jon Richard O'Kane v. Jeff Coleman, Individually and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Texas,
Inc.
Appeal from 10th District Court of Galveston County
Trial Court Judge: David Edward Garner
In this case arising from sequential leases of the same commercial premises, the initial lessee, appellant Jon
Richard O'Kane appeals from a take-nothing summary judgment in favor of the subsequent lessees, appellees Jeff
Coleman, individually, and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Texas, Inc. We affirm the judgment in favor of
appellees on all claims except O'Kane's claim under the Texas Theft Liability Act. We sever that claim from the
remaining claims, reverse the summary judgment in favor of appellees on O'Kane's Theft Liability Act claim, and
remand to the trial court.
Having concluded that appellees' summary judgment motion was not sufficiently broad to cover O'Kane's Texas
Theft Liability Act claim, we reverse the trial court's summary judgment in favor of appellees on that claim, sever
that portion of the court's judgment, and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings as to the Texas
Theft Liability Act claim. We affirm the remainder of the judgment.
HOUSTON APPELLATE COURT CASES | TEXAS CASE LAW |
CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE