O.E. Smith's Sons, Inc. v. George
| Decision Date | 06 April 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-1368,88-1368 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 856 O.E. SMITH'S SONS, INC., Appellant, v. Steve GEORGE, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Lester Makofka, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Jeffrey C. Regan, of Rogers, Towers, Bailey, Jones & Gay, Jacksonville, for appellee.
Plaintiff, O.E. Smith's Sons, Inc. (Smith's) sued George for tortious interference with the business relationship between Smith's and Centex Homes Corporation (Centex). The trial court granted final summary judgment in favor of the defendant, denied Smith's motion for rehearing and Smith's appealed. We reverse.
Since 1982, Smith's has been in a business relationship with Centex providing septic tank installation and repair services and earning between $80,000 and $100,000 per year. George is vice-president of construction for Centex.
Smith's alleged that George sought a septic tank clearance certificate for the purpose of refinancing and/or selling his personal residence. Allegedly George did not want to pay the $150 cost of this service and wanted Smith's to send the clearance certificate without actually inspecting the premises. Smith's further alleged that George became angry when Smith's refused to issue the certification without inspecting the premises; that after the affiant Sylvia Smith explained to George that to issue the certification without actually inspecting the premises would be unethical and probably illegal, George advised affiant Smith that he would see to it that "someone else would receive the $100,000 worth of business which O.E. Smith's Sons had previously received from Centex."
After this incident Centex cancelled existing septic tank orders and placed no further orders with Smith's. Smith's indicated that it had never before received a complaint or dispute from Centex yet when they contacted the Centex president he stated that he "would go along with Mr. George on this matter."
George defended stating that Smith's complaint does not allege sufficient ultimate facts to demonstrate that he was a third party to the business relationship, that he has discretionary authority to terminate business relations between Centex and others, and that he obtained similar services to those offered by Smith's at a 25% savings to Centex. Centex's president stated by affidavit that George is vice-president of construction, and that George had authority to make that move, and that upon being informed by George that he had obtained a 25% costs savings that he, the president, apporved the change in septic tank contractors as in the best interest of Centex.
In its final summary judgment, the court found that Smith's failed to allege and establish that George was not a party to the business relationship as is required in a cause of action for tortious interference with a business relationship under West v. Troelstrup, 367 So.2d 253 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). The court further found that this case did not fit the limited circumstances of Sloan v. Sax, 505 So.2d 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) where the employee/defendant acted with ill will towards the plaintiff, acted outside the scope of his employment responsibilities and induced his employer to terminate a business relationship to the employer's detriment.
To recover on a claim based on tortious interference with a business relationship, a plaintiff must establish (1) the existence of a business relationship, not necessarily evidenced by an enforceable contract, (2) knowledge of the relationship on the part of the defendant, (3) an intentional and unjustified interference with the relationship by the defendant, and (4) damage to the plaintiffs as a result of the breach of the relationship. Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc. v. Cotton, 463 So.2d 1126, 1127 (Fla.1985).
The key element of the tort of intentional interference with a business...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lock v. City of W. Melbourne, Case No: 6:12-cv-680-Orl-36TBS
...entitlement to summary judgment based on their status as parties to Lock's employment contract. See O.E. Smith's Sons, Inc. v. George, 545 So. 2d 298, 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (holding that there was a factual question as to corporate officer's motives in terminating the business relationshi......
-
Cox v. CSX Intermodal, Inc.
...party or is integral to the contractual relationship is not absolute. Sloan, 505 So.2d at 528; see O.E. Smith's Sons, Inc. v. George, 545 So.2d 298, 299-300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Thus, where an employee acts solely with ulterior purposes and without an honest belief that her actions would be......
-
Diamond Resorts Int'l, Inc. v. Aaronson
...best interest." Rudnick v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. , 358 F.Supp.2d 1201, 1206 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (quoting O.E. Smith's Sons, Inc. v. George , 545 So.2d 298, 299 (1st DCA 1989) ). But "[a] qualified privilege to interfere is not negated by concomitant evidence of malice. It is only when malice is......
-
Menudo Int'l, LLC v. in Miami Prod., LLC
...742 So. 2d 381, 385-86 (emphasis added) (citing Abruzzo v. Haller, 603 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); O.E. Smith's Sons, Inc. v. George, 545 So. 2d 298, 299 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); West v. Troelstrup, 367 So. 2d 253, 255 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)). "A defendant is not a stranger to a business or c......
-
Big Enough To Drive A Truck Through? Considering Florida's 'Ulterior Purpose' Exception To The Third Party Requirement Of A Tortious Interference Claim
...But, the court wrote, "[t]here is a recognized exception to this general rule, as explained in O.E. Smith's Sons, Inc., v. George, 545 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 1st DCA For the interference to be unjustified, the defendant must be a third party, external to the business relationship. However, the pr......