Summary
holding that the basic allegation that a plaintiff was emotionally damaged is not sufficient evidence of emotional distress
Summary of this case from Blank v. Broadsword Grp., LLCOpinion
No. 02-165
December 23, 2003
Appeal from the District Court of Albany County, The Honorable John C. Brooks, Judge.
Representing Appellants: John E. Stanfield of Laramie, Wyoming, and Walter Urbigkit of Cheyenne, Wyoming. Argument by Messrs. Stanfield and Urbigkit.
Representing Appellees: Philip A. Nicholas of Anthony, Nicholas, Tangeman Yates, LLC, Laramie, Wyoming, for appellees Laramie Economic Development Corporation and Robert Boysen; and Mason F. Skiles and Joseph A. Rodriguez of Skiles Rodriguez, LLC, Laramie, Wyoming, for appellee Robert J. "Joel" Coffey. Argument by Messrs. Skiles and Nicholas.
Before HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, LEHMAN, KITE, and VOIGT, JJ.
[¶ 1] This matter is before the Court on the defendants' petitions for rehearing in Ahrenholtz v. Laramie Economic Development Corporation, 2003 WY 149, 79 P.3d 511 (Wyo. 2003). We have granted the petitions for the limited purpose of substituting the following in place of ¶ 17 in the original opinion:
[¶ 17] The elements of a claim for tortious interference with a prospective contractual relation are:
One who intentionally and improperly interferes with another's prospective contractual relation (except a contract to marry) is subject to liability to the other for the pecuniary harm resulting from loss of the benefits of the relation, whether the interference consists of
(a) inducing or otherwise causing a third person not to enter into or continue the prospective relation or
(b) preventing the other from acquiring or continuing the prospective relation.
Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 766B (1979); Birt v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., 2003 WY 102, ¶ 71, 75 P.3d 640, ¶ 71 (Wyo. 2003).
[¶ 2] The above change does not alter the holding of our opinion in Ahrenholtz. The evidence and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom noted in that opinion, when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs as the party opposing the motion for summary judgment, are sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact whether the defendants' actions were intentional and improper interference that: (1) induced or otherwise caused Wyoming Technical Institute (WTI) not to enter into or continue a prospective contractual relation with Ahrenholtz; or (2) prevented Ahrenholtz from acquiring or continuing a prospective contractual relation with WTI.
[¶ 3] Nothing in this opinion on rehearing or in our original opinion at 2003 WY 149; 79 P.3d 511, should be construed to prohibit the defendants from presenting any defense at trial based upon the provisions of the Restatement (Second) of Torts that have been adopted by this Court.