DeBerry v. McCain

28 Citing cases

  1. Johns v. Amtrust Underwriters, Inc.

    996 F. Supp. 2d 413 (D.S.C. 2014)   Cited 4 times

    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.

  2. Advantage Inspection International, LLC v. Sumner

    C.A. No. 6:06-3466-HMH (D.S.C. Jan. 15, 2008)

    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."

  3. Waldrep Bros. Beauty Supply, Inc. v. Wynn Beauty Supply Co.

    992 F.2d 59 (4th Cir. 1993)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that judgment for defendant was appropriate in tortious interference action where defendant did not have a contract under which it was enforcing rights

    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.

  4. Wilson v. S.C. Law Enf't Div.

    C. A. 4:22-cv-02312-JD-KDW (D.S.C. Jul. 31, 2023)

    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.

  5. State Farm Life Ins. Co. v. Murphy

    260 F. Supp. 3d 497 (D.S.C. 2017)   Cited 9 times
    Holding a plaintiff fails to adequately plead special damages from a conspiracy when she fails to plead damages that "arose specifically because of the conspiracy itself, and that were not caused by the intentional interference with contract claim"

    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.

  6. Wired Fox Techs., Inc. v. Estep

    Civil Action No.: 6:15-331-BHH (D.S.C. Mar. 27, 2017)   Cited 2 times

    "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.

  7. Mach. Solutions, Inc. v. Doosan Corp.

    Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-03447-JMC (D.S.C. May. 12, 2016)   Cited 6 times
    Dismissing SCUTPA claim noting that "[a]bsent specific facts, a plaintiff is merely offering a speculative claim about adverse public impact"

    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."

  8. Functional Pathways of Tenn., LLC v. Wilson Senior Care, Inc.

    Civil Action No.: 4:12-cv-00922-RBH (D.S.C. Jan. 7, 2013)

    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.

  9. Self v. Norfolk Southern Corporation

    C/A No. 1:06-1730-MBS, C/A No. 1:06-2104-MBS (D.S.C. Feb. 14, 2007)

    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.

  10. Cryovac Inc. v. Pechiney Plastic Packaging, Inc.

    430 F. Supp. 2d 346 (D. Del. 2006)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that federal patent law did not preempt a state tortious interference claim where patent infringement provided the "wrongful conduct" element of interference; tort claim was asserted in conjunction with, and did not conflict with, patent law and required proof of additional elements, including mental state and the existence and loss of a business expectancy

    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.