Monarch Indus. Towel and Uniform Rental, Inc. v. Model Coverall Service, Inc.

• Decision Date: 02 November 1978
• Docket Number: No. 3-376A59,3-376A59
• Citation: 381 N.E.2d 1098,178 Ind.App. 235
• Parties: MONARCH INDUSTRIAL TOWEL AND UNIFORM RENTAL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MODEL COVERALL SERVICE, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

Page 1098

381 N.E.2d 1098

178 Ind.App. 235

MONARCH INDUSTRIAL TOWEL AND UNIFORM RENTAL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MODEL COVERALL SERVICE, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 3-376A59.

Court of Appeals of Indiana, Third District.

Nov. 2, 1978.

John T. Mulvihill, Thornburg, McGill, Deahl, Harman, Carey & Murray, South Bend, for plaintiff-appellant.

Edward A. Chapleau, Chapleau, Roper, McInerny, Minczeski & Farabaugh, South Bend, for defendant-appellee.

HOFFMAN, Judge.

Plaintiff-appellant Monarch Industrial Towel and Uniform Rental, Inc. (Monarch) filed a complaint of tortious interference with a contractual relationship against Model Coverall Service, Inc. (Model). Monarch alleged that Model committed said tort by inducing Emmert Trailer Company (Emmert) to breach its uniform rental service contract with Monarch. (Emmert executed a similar contract with Model after terminating the contract with Monarch).

Following Monarch's presentation of evidence at trial, the trial court granted Model's motion for judgment on the evidence, pursuant to Ind.Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 50. Monarch perfected this appeal arguing that the court erred in granting Model's motion for judgment on the evidence and in refusing to allow Monarch to reopen its case.

Indiana recognizes the tort of interference with contract relationships by inducing a breach of contract and has defined the essential elements which must be proved for recovery under such an action in Daly v. Nau (1975), Ind.App., 339 N.E.2d 71, at 76, as follows:

"(1) existence of a valid and enforceable contract;

(2) defendant's knowledge of the existence of the contract;

(3) defendant's intentional inducement of breach of the contract;

(4) the absence of justification; and

(5) damages resulting from defendant's wrongful inducement of the breach."

Model's T.R. 50 motion was grounded upon the lack of proper evidence as to damages. But it is well established that the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed on appeal if sustainable on any basis. Ertel v. Radio Corporation of America (1976), Ind.App., 354 N.E.2d 783, at 785. The evidence presented by Monarch failed to prove that Model intentionally induced Emmert to breach the contract with Monarch. Rather, the evidence shows that Emmert was dissatisfied with the service that Monarch was providing and had been looking at other rental services. The evidence is that Model approached Emmert to inquire as to whether Emmert was being supplied with a uniform rental service and that the Model sales representative was told that Emmert was not happy with the present supplier and intended to cancel the contract. And there was no evidence that Model offered any inducements to Emmert in the form of a better price or better services. Rather, the evidence is that there was no discussion of prices until Emmert had already given Monarch notice of termination of the contract and that the price Emmert was paying under its contract with Model was higher than that it had paid...