Opinion
No. 2012AP2745.
2013-09-19
TRAVEL SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Phillip D. FERRIS, Defendant–Appellant, Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP, Interested Party–Respondent.
Ferris makes multiple arguments under this statute as to why Travel Services' action was frivolous. But to succeed, Ferris needed just one valid frivolousness argument. We conclude he had at least one, namely, his argument that, under subsection (b), Travel Services knew or should have known that its tortious interference claim had no reasonable basis in current law or a good faith argument for a change in law, because Travel Services knew or should have known that it could not prevail on all of the elements of that claim. Thus, we do not address Ferris's other arguments. 5 Brew City Redevelopment Group, LLC v. Ferchill Group, 2006 WI 128, ¶ 37 n. 9, 297 Wis.2d 606, 724 N.W.2d 879 (quoted source omitted). The parties' dispute here is solely directed at the fifth element, whether Ferris's communication with Travel Services' members was privileged. Ferris argues that Travel Services knew or should have known that it could not possibly prevail with respect to this element. For the reasons below, we agree.