The elements for a claim of tortious interference with a contract are: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) the defendant's knowledge of the contract; (3) intentional procurement of the contract's breach; (4) absence of justification; and (5) damages resulting therefrom. DeBerry v. McCain, 275 S.C. 569, 274 S.E.2d 293, 296 (1981). A contract that is terminable at-will satisfies the contract requirement.
In order to prove a prima facie case of intentional interference with existing contractual relations, Sumner must prove the following elements: "(1) the contract; (2) the wrongdoer's knowledge thereof; (3) his intentional procurement of its breach; (4) the absence of justification; and (5) damages resulting therefrom." DeBerry v. McCain, 274 S.E.2d 293, 296 (S.C. 1981). Sumner alleges that Advantage, "by and through its agents, made defamatory statements to Sumner's clients, tortuously [sic] interfering with his contractual relations."
To state a claim for intentional interference with a contract, a plaintiff must prove: "(1) the contract; (2) the wrongdoer's knowledge thereof; (3) his intentional procurement of its breach; (4) the absence of justification; and (5) damages resulting therefrom." DeBerry v. McCain, 275 S.C. 569, 274 S.E.2d 293, 296 (1981). The courts of South Carolina have held that an at-will contract can be the basis for a claim of intentional interference with contract.
The elements for a claim of tortious interference with a contract are: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) the defendant's knowledge of the contract; (3) intentional procurement of the contract's breach; (4) absence of justification; and (5) damages resulting therefrom. Johns v. Amtrust Underwriters, Inc., 996 F.Supp.2d 413, 420 (D.S.C. 2014) (citing DeBerry v. McCain, 274 S.E.2d 293, 296, 275 S.C. 569 (1981)). Plaintiff recites these elements in the Complaint but does not sufficiently plead or plausibly allege any set of facts suggesting any of these Defendants intentionally caused Plaintiff Wilson to breach any contract with his clients.
To state a claim for intentional interference with a contract, a plaintiff must prove: "(1) the contract; (2) the wrongdoer's knowledge thereof; (3) his intentional procurement of its breach; (4) the absence of justification; and (5) damages resulting therefrom." DeBerry v. McCain, 275 S.C. 569, 274 S.E.2d 293, 296 (1981). The third amended complaint fails even the relatively lax pleading standard of Rule 12(b)(6) because, as a matter of law, State Farm's filing of an interpleader action does not constitute a breach of contract.
"To state a claim for intentional interference with a contract, a plaintiff must prove: '(1) the contract; (2) the wrongdoer's knowledge thereof; (3) his intentional procurement of its breach; (4) the absence of justification; and (5) damages resulting therefrom.'" Waldrep Bros. Beauty Supply v. Wynn Beauty Supply Co., 992 F.2d 59, 62 (4th Cir. 1993) (quoting DeBerry v. McCain, 274 S.E.2d 293, 296 (S.C. 1981)). Defendants argue that no genuine issue of material fact remains on this claim because Plaintiff has not produced any evidence that Wired Fox breached a contract with any of its customers as a result of Defendants' actions.
The elements for a claim of tortious interference with a contract are: (1) the existence of a contract; (2) the defendant's knowledge of the contract; (3) intentional procurement of the contract's breach; (4) absence of justification; and (5) damages resulting therefrom. DeBerry v. McCain, 274 S.E.2d 293, 296 (S.C. 1981). "[T]he alleged act of interference must influence, induce, or coerce one of the parties to the contract to abandon the relationship or breach the contract."
In order to prevail on such a claim, a plaintiff must show the existence of (1) a "contract; (2) the wrongdoer's knowledge thereof; (3) his intentional procurement of its breach; (4) the absence of justification; and (5) damages resulting therefrom." DeBerry v. McCain, 274 S.E.2d 293, 296 (S.C. 1981). Here, Heritage does not dispute that a contract existed between Plaintiff and WSC—the contract being the agreement that Plaintiff maintained a three-year right of first refusal.
Tortious interference with contractual relations — The elements for intentional interference with contract are: (1) the contract; (2) the wrongdoer's knowledge thereof; (3) his intentional procurement of its breach; (4) the absence of justification; and (5) damages resulting therefrom. DeBerry v McCain, 274 S.E.2d 293, 296 (S.C. 1981). The tort of intentional interference with prospective contractual relations includes the following elements: (1) the defendant intentionally interfered with the plaintiff's potential contractual relations; (2) for an improper purpose or by improper methods; (3) causing injury to the plaintiff.
However, the parties apparently agree ( see D.I. 198 at 13-14; D.I. 250 at 9-10) that the law of tortious interference with contract and tortious interference with prospective contractual relations is essentially the same in all four states. See Dickens v. Snodgrass, Dunlap Co., 872 P.2d 252, 257 (Kan. 1994) (stating elements of tortious interference with contract claim); Turner v. Halliburton Co., 722 P.2d 1106, 1115 (Kan. 1986) (stating elements of tortious interference with prospective contractual relations claim); Tri-Continental Leasing Co. v. Neidhardt, 540 S.W.2d 210, 212 (Mo.Ct.App. 1976) (stating elements of toritous interference with contract claim); Carter v. St. John's Regional Medical Center, 88 S.W.3d 1, 13 (Mo.Ct.App. 2002) (stating elements of tortious interference with prospective contractual relations claim); DeBerry v. McCain, 274 S.E.2d 293, 296 (S.C. 1981) (stating elements of tortious interference with contract claim); Crandall Corp. v. Navistar Int'l Transp. Corp., 395 S.E.2d 179, 180 (S.C. 1990) (stating elements of tortious interference with prospective contractual relations claim). Therefore, the resolution of Pechiney's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the tortious interference claims does not depend on a choice of law determination, and, for convenience, I cite to precedent based on Delaware law.