Our Supreme Court has held that "the intentional and knowing inducement of a party to break his contract with another party is a wrongful act, and actionable as such, unless reasonable justification or excuse can be shown." Greenwald v Greenwald, 480 Mich 1158; 746 NW2d 620 (2008). Here, in order to survive Unison's motion for summary disposition, CELLC was required to put forth evidence that, at a minimum, created a factual question concerning whether Unison committed a wrongful act that had no justification, and did so with malice and the intent to induce Debra to breach the lease agreement with CELLC, or that Unison committed a lawful act with malicious intent to induce Debra to breach the lease agreement with CELLC.

If a defendant's act was not per se wrongful (i.e., "an act that is inherently wrongful or one that is never justified under any circumstances." Greenwald v. Greenwald, 746 N.W.2d 620, 620 (Mich. 2008)), the plaintiff "must demonstrate, with specificity, affirmative acts by the defendant that corroborate the improper motive of the interference." BPS Clinical Labs. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 552 N.W.2d 919, 925 (1996).

The "intentional and knowing inducement of a party to break his contract with another party is a wrongful act, and actionable as such, unless reasonable justification or excuse can be shown." Greenwald v. Greenwald, 480 Mich. 1158, 1158 (2008) (quoting Bahr v. Miller Bros. Creamery, 365 Mich. 415, 422 (1961) (emphasis in Greenwald). Whether Sunrise intentionally and knowingly interfered with Harder's employment with RHH and whether Sunrise's actions were justified are not facts that can be disposed of as a matter of law on a motion for judgment on the pleadings. See Wilkinson v. Powe, 300 Mich. 275, 283 (1942) (question of what will constitute justification is usually held to be one for the jury).

See National Pharmaceutical Svs. v. Harrison Comm. Hosp., 67 Mich. App. 286, 294 (1976) ("The issue of justification for the breach is a jury question."); Greenwald v. Greenwald, 480 Mich. 1158 (2008) ("This Court has explained that `No categorical answer can be made to the question of what will constitute justification, and it is usually held that this question is one for the jury.'")

"Justification exists where the defendant acted on an equal or superior right." Greenwald v Greenwald, 480 Mich. 1158, 1158, 746 N.W.2d 620 (2008) (quotation marks and citations omitted). [11, 12] We agree with plaintiff’s that there is a genuine issue of material fact concerning the first and second elements of the claim.