Intentional Interference With Contractual Relations
The Case: Trau-Med of America, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 71 S.W.3d 691 (Tenn. 2002). Author: Justice William M. Barker
Why it is a Blue Chipper: Trua-Med is the first Tennessee case to recognize a common law cause of action for intentional interference with contractual relations. To reach that result the Court overruled Nelson v. Martin, 958 S.W.2d 653 (Tenn. 1997).
The Hawaii Supreme Court has ruled that two law firms who represented a party in a business dispute cannot be sued by the adversary party for intentional interference with contractual relations.
Plaintiff had a dispute with a business partner – the two were general partners of a partnership that ran a hotel. The defendant law firms represented the non-plaintiff partner. The dispute ended up in arbitration, and Plaintiff demanded to see certain books and records of the hotel partnership. The law firms took possession of those documents, and Plaintiff sued them for interfering with its right to access to the books and records. The law firms said, inter alia, that the suit was barred by the litigation privilege.
The Court did a nice review of the history of the litigation privilege and ruled that the lawyer’s conduct was protected by the privilege. The Court explained that the fact that the arbitration process was temporarily stayed at the time the dispute arose was immaterial.
Business Tennessee magazine has released its list of the 150 best lawyers in Tennessee. Here is the list by area of practice.
These lists come out from time to time and I am always surprised to see that some lawyers I think are just fantastic are not included. I don’t know exactly how the process works but I am honored to be included on the list again this year.
I was in Knoxville yesterday and had the opportunity to talk with my friend Howard Vogel and his son Alex. We were talking blogs (the three of us make a fun group, don’t we?) and Howard or Alex asked what blogs I regularly read.
I thought I would share the list.
I really enjoy reading Blog 702. The writing is great, the posts informative. I wish they had a permalink function in their blogging program, but this post is too good not to re-print here in toto.
2/7/07 UPDATE: I got a comment from the folks at Blog 702 and they informed me that they do have a permalink function. My bad. Here it is the link.
"A post by Ted Frank at Point of Law directs us to another post, by Jim Beck and Mark Herrmann at Drug and Device Law, which adverts, in turn, to an article in the December 2006 issue of Neurology entitled "The impact of litigation on neurologic research." The article is authored by two faculty at the Washington University School of Medicine (Drs. Brad A. Racette and Joel S. Perlmutter) and two attorneys (Ann Bradley, internal university counsel, and Carrie A. Wrisberg, a partner in the St. Louis law firm Moser & Marsalek).
Professional and hospital liability insurers have convinced their customers that malpractice premiums will go down if meritorious malpractice claims are capped by the state legislature.
But look what happened in Florida. According to Tallahassee.com, "the Legislature three years ago capped pain and suffering awards to $500,000 per physician and $1 million per case. Since then, [ Florida Department of Financial Services’ Consumer Advocate Steve] Burgess contends, insurance data shows medical malpractice legal costs and payouts have dropped 43.6 percent, from $989 million to $557 million." And rates? One insurer wants to cut them 8.6%.
Caps on human losses in malpractice cases will have no material effect on rates, and it the insurance companies believe that it will they should agree to a reduction in premiums as a matter of law. The amount of the reduction should be determined by an independent actuary, the cost of employing such borne by each company. The amount of saving should be available to the Legislature before voting on caps so that they can determine whether it is in the best interest of the state to save doctors and hospitals money by capping jury awards in meritorious cases.
The Supreme Court of Arizona has ruled that persons who are prescribed drugs owe a duty of care, making them potentially liable for negligence, when they improperly give their drugs to others.
The defendant shared his prescribed drug (oxycodone) with others at a party. One of the women he shared the drugs with gave them to the plaintiff’s decedent, who died that night from the combined toxicity of alcohol and oxcyodone. The plaintiff (decedent’s mother) sued, and defendant denied that he owed a duty to the decedent.
The Court held that because Arizona had statutes prohibiting the sharing of prescription drugs a duty existed. The Court said that "[b]ecause [the decedent] is within the class of persons to be protected by the statute and the harm that occurred here is the risk that the statute sought to protect against, these statutes create a tort duty."
I never met Molly Ivins, but wish I had. She was a gifted writer with a wonderful sense of humor.
Her death is a real loss for all of us who love to read about politics.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled on whether expert witness fees may be taxed as costs in federal court.
FRCP 54(d) permits a successful party to recover costs in federal court and 28 U.S.C. 1920 permits the recovery of "fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses." The amount recoverable for witnesses is spelled out in § 1821 and includes $40 per day for an appearance fee, allowable travel expense, and a subsistence allowance when overnight travel is required.
The Court determined that expert witness fees were not recoverable because § 1920 does not provide for them. However, the prevailing party may recover "as ordinary witness costs for attendance fees, travel expenses, and as a subsistence allowance under § 1821."
The New Hampshire Supreme Court has held that a boyfriend riding a motorcycle could not bring an emotional distress claim against another driver for injuries caused as a result witnessing the death of his passenger (who was also his girlfriend).
The issue was "did the trial court err in determining that the plaintiff and MacDonald were not “closely related” so as to satisfy the requirements of Graves v. Estabrook, 149 N.H. 202 (2003), for bystander recovery in a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim?"
The Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the case, holding that the plaintiff and his late girlfriend were not "closely related." They explained their decision as follows:
