[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

1. The existence of contract to which plaintiff is a party;
2. Defendant’s knowledge of the contract;
3. Defendant’s intentional procurement of the contract’s breach;
4. The absence of justification or privilege; and
5. Plaintiff suffered damages resulting from the breach.

Subscribers To The Florida Litigation Guide Can See:

• The rest of the elements for this cause of action;
• The citations to the most recent state and federal court cases citing the cause of action;
• The statute of limitations; and
• The defenses to this cause of action.

Click Here To See A Sample Chapter From The Guide

Subscribe to The Florida Litigation Guide To Access Everything!

[/MM_Access_Decision] [MM_Access_Decision access='true']

1. The existence of contract to which plaintiff is a party;
2. Defendant’s knowledge of the contract;
3. Defendant’s intentional procurement of the contract’s breach;
4. The absence of justification or privilege; and
5. Plaintiff suffered damages resulting from the breach.

Tortious interference with a contract is virtually identical to the elements of a claim for tortious interference with business relationships; however, it is recognized as a separate cause of action. See McDonald v. McGowan, 402 So. 2d 1197, 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).

---

FLORIDA STATE COURTS

Supreme Court: Gossard v. Adia Servs., Inc., 723 So.2d 182, 184 (Fla. 1998); Dade Enter., Inc. v. Wometco Theatres, Inc., 119 Fla. 70, 160 So. 209, 210 (1935).

First District: Howard v. Murray, 184 So.3d 1155, 1166 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015); McKinney-Green, Inc. v. Davis, 606 So. 2d 393, 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

Second District: Fiberglass Coatings, Inc. v. Interstate Chem., Inc., 16 So.3d 836, 838 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

Third District: DNA Sports Performance Lab, Inc. v. Club Atlantis Condo. Ass’n., Inc., 219 So.3d 107, 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017); Fernandez v. Haber & Ganguzza, LLP, 30 So.3d 644, 646 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).

Fourth District: James Crystal Licenses, LLC v. Infinity Radio Inc., 43 So. 3d 68, 76 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

Fifth District: Kenniasty v. Bionetics Corp., 82 So.3d 1071, 1074 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).

FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

Eleventh Circuit: In re Hallucination Media, LLC, No. 24-10194, 2024 WL 3898536, at *7 (11th Cir. Aug. 22, 2024); Soho Ocean Resort TRS, LLC v. Rutois, 2023 WL 242350, *2 (11th Cir. Jan. 18, 2023); OJ Com., LLC v. KidKraft, Inc., 2022 WL 1638970, *1-2 (11th Cir. May 24, 2022); AMG Trade & Distribution, LLC v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., 813 F. App’x 403, 406 (11th Cir. 2020).

Southern District: Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. v. Forbes/Cohen Florida Properties, L.P., No. 20-80157-CIV, 2024 WL 4003733, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 1, 2024); Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc. v. Timeshare Laws. P.A., 2023 WL 3198192, *13 (S.D. Fla. May 2, 2023); Woodard-CM, LLC v. Sunlord Leisure Products, Inc, 2022 WL 890065, *7-8 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2022); Drewes v. Cetera Fin. Group, Inc., 2021 WL 5810634, *14 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 2021).

Middle District: Escal Inst. of Advanced Techs., Inc. v. Treadstone 71, LLC, No. 2:23-CV-630-SPC-KCD, 2024 WL 4149864, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 11, 2024); Lincoln Mem’l Acad. v. Dep’t of Educ.; Sch. Dist. of Manatee Cnty., Fla., 2022 WL 18027784, *26 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 30, 2022); Diamond Resorts U.S. Collection Dev., LLC v. Saliba, 2022 WL 19479012, *5 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 23, 2022); Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc. v. Wesley Fin. Grp., LLC, 2022 WL 18144988, *4 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 24, 2022).

Northern District: Rashada v. Hathcock, No. 3:24-CV-219-MCR-HTC, 2025 WL 1043208, at *11 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 8, 2025); Restore Robotics, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 5:19CV55-TKW-MJF, 2019 WL 8063988, at *4 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 14, 2019); Pediatric Servs. of Am., Inc. v. Kendrick, No. 3:18CV1372-RV-HTC, 2019 WL 7376973, at *2 (N.D. Fla. June 5, 2019).

REFERENCES

Restatement (Second) of Torts ‘ 767, (1995 Amendment)

---

2 Defenses to Claim for Tortious Interference: 2. With a Contractual Right

(1) Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other standard defenses. See § 1.

(2) Statute of Limitations: § 95.11(3)(p), Fla. Stat. (four years).

(3) Defendant is not liable where she did not “intentionally” interfere with the plaintiff’s business relationship. McCurdy v. Collis, 508 So. 2d 380, 383 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), rev. denied, 518 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1987); Maxi-Taxi of Fla., Inc. v. Lee Cty. Port Authority, 301 Fed.Appx 881, 885-86 (11th Cir. 2008).

(4) Acts occurring during a judicial proceeding are absolutely privileged and cannot give rise to tortious interference claims. Davis v. Bailynson, 268 So. 3d 762, 769 (4th DCA 2019); but see DelMonico v. Traynor, 116 So.3d 1205, 1220 (Fla. 2013) (holding that statements made during ex-parte, out-of-court questioning of potential witnesses are subject only to qualified privilege).

(5) Plaintiff cannot bring tortious interference claim when a contract provision expressly reserves the right of interference. McCurdy v. Collis, 508 So. 2d 380, 383 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), rev. denied, 518 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1987); 11611 Bonita Beach Rd. SE Assocs., LLC v. Pine Island Crossing, LLC, No. 2:14–cv–625–FtM–38DNF, 2015 WL 757844, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 23, 2015).

(6) Agent that gives, on request by his or her principal, “honest advice” in his or her principal’s best interest to breach an existing relationship is not liable for tortious interference. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 772 (1965); Scussel v. Balter, 386 So.2d 1227, 1228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Westgate Resorts, Ltd. v. Reed Hein & Assocs., LLC, No: 6:18-cv-1088-Orl-31DCI, 2018 WL 5279156, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 24, 2018).

(7) Plaintiff cannot bring tortious interference claim against a defendant that is a party to the contract at issue. Ethyl Corp. v. Balter, 386 So. 2d 1220, 1224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 955 (1981); Seminole Masonry, LLC v. Hodges, No. 18-60368-Civ-Scola, 2019 WL 687918, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 19, 2019).

(8) Privileged or justified conduct does not give rise to tortious interference claim. VVIG, Inc. v. Alvarez, No. 18-23109-CIV, 2019 WL 5063441, at *7 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 9, 2019); Heavener, Ogier Servs., Inc. v. R.W. Florida Regions, Inc., 418 So. 2d 1074, 1077 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 768 (1965).

(9) Defendant acting to protect her own economic or financial interests is not liable for tortious interference. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 769 (1965); Bruce v. American Dev. Corp., 408 So. 2d 857, 858 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Collier HMA Physician Mgmt., LLC v. NCH Healthcare Sys., Inc., No: 2:18-cv-408-FtM-38MRM, 2019 WL 277733, at *9 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 22, 2019).

(10) Plaintiff cannot premise claim on alleged interference with a contract that is terminable at will provided that interference is lawful competition. See Adler Consulting Corp. v. Executive Life Ins. Co., 483 So. 2d 501, 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).

(11) Defendant’s settlement of a lawsuit that adversely affects plaintiff’s business interests does not give rise to tortious interference claim. See Paparone v. Bankers Life & Casualty, Co., 496 So. 2d 865, 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).

(12) When a party to a contract was predisposed to breach the contract, a third party’s actions cannot have induced the breach. See Kennedy v. Deschenes, No. 17-60110-Civ-Scola, 2017 WL 2223050, at *6 (S.D. Fla. May 19, 2017).

[/MM_Access_Decision]