[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

1. Plaintiff has a business relationship, not necessarily evidenced by an enforceable contract;
2. Defendant has knowledge of the relationship;
3. Defendant intentionally and unjustifiably interfered with the relationship; and
4. Plaintiff suffered damages.

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. Plaintiff has a business relationship, not necessarily evidenced by an enforceable contract;
2. Defendant has knowledge of the relationship;
3. Defendant intentionally and unjustifiably interfered with the relationship; and
4. Plaintiff suffered damages.

---

FLORIDA STATE COURTS

Supreme Court: Gossard v. Adia Servs., Inc., 723 So.2d 182, 184 (Fla. 1998); Ethan Allen, Inc. v. Georgetown Manor, Inc. 647 So. 2d 812, 814 (Fla. 1994).

First District: Howard v. Murray, 184 So.3d 1155, 1166 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015); University of W. Fla. Bd. of Tr. v. Habegger, 125 So. 3d 323, 326 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

Second District: Swope Rodante, P.A. v. Harmon, 85 So.3d 508, 509-10 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); Murtagh v. Hurley, 40 So. 3d 62, 66 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

Third District: Ozyesilpinar v. Reach PLC, 2023 WL 3485529, *4 (Fla. 3d DCA May 17, 2023); Crawley-Kitzman v. Hernandez, 324 So. 3d 968, 976 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021); de Castro v. Stoddard, 314 So. 3d 397, 402 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).

Fourth District: Font & Nelson, PLLC v. Path Med., LLC, No. 4D19-3428, 2021 WL 1556642, at *3 (Fla. 4th DCA Apr. 21, 2021); Bridge Fin., Inc. v. J. Fischer & Assocs., Inc., 310 So. 3d 45, 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).

Fifth District: Spagnuolo v. Ins. Off. of Am., Inc., 356 So. 3d 908, 920 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023); Kenniasty v. Bionetics Corp., 82 So.3d 1071, 1074 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).

FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

Eleventh Circuit: Onemata Corp. v. Arefin, No. 23-10070, 2024 WL 3666091, at *1 (11th Cir. Aug. 6, 2024); Ho v. City of Boynton Beach, 2023 WL 2293517, *2 (11th Cir. Mar. 1, 2023); Soho Ocean Resort TRS, LLC v. Rutois, 2023 WL 242350, *2 (11th Cir. Jan. 18, 2023); Illoominate Media, Inc. v. CAIR Fla., Inc., 841 F. App’x 132, 136 (11th Cir. 2020).

Southern District: XYZ Corp. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Assoc. Identified on Schedule "A", No. 23-CV-24366, 2024 WL 3673011, at *9 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 6, 2024); Eran Fin. Servs., LLC v. Eran Indus. Ltd., 2023 WL 3025347, *8 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 24, 2023); Shores Glob., LLC v. Njord’s Ark A/S, 2023 WL 2838078, *25 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 3, 2023); Fam. First Life, LLC v. Rutstein, 2023 WL 2866554, *9 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 30, 2023).

Middle District: Yuyo's Towing, Inc. v. Best Towing, Inc., No. 2:24-CV-410-JLB-NPM, 2024 WL 5111693, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 13, 2024); NoNaNi Entm’t, LLC v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc., 2023 WL 1967579, *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 13, 2023); Voo-Doo Daddy Prods., LLC v. Colorblind Media, LLC, 2022 WL 17251517, *4 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 28, 2022); Collier HMA Physician Mgmt., LLC v. NCH Healthcare Sys., Inc., 2022 WL 1540396, *2 (M.D. Fla. May 16, 2022). 

Northern District: Bespoke Studio, Inc. v. Gabbe Private Ltd., No. 3:24CV121-TKW-ZCB, 2024 WL 4644354, at *4 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 27, 2024); Crosswright v. Escambia Cmty. Clinics, 2023 WL 2759788, *5 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2023); Uhlig v. Cherry, 2022 WL 949783, *4-5 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 28, 2022); Restore Robotics, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 5:19CV55-TKW-MJF, 2019 WL 8063988, at *4 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 14, 2019).

REFERENCES

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

---

2 Defenses to Claim for Tortious Interference: 1. With Advantageous Business Relationship

(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) 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 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019); Levin, Middlebrooks v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994); 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).

(4) 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).

(5) An 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. 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); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 772 (1965).

(6) Plaintiff cannot bring a tortious interference claim against a defendant that is a party to the business relationship 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).

(7) 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); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 768 (1965).

(8) Defendant acting to protect his or her own economic or financial interests is not liable for tortious interference. 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); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 769 (1965).

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

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

(11) Plaintiffs cannot establish a tortious interference claim by alleging that defendant interfered with an amorphous class of customers, but rather must establish the existence of a business relationship with “identifiable customers”. Ferguson Trans. v. North American Van Lines, 687 So. 2d 821, 821-822 (Fla. 1996); Ethan Allen v. Georgetown Manor, 647 So. 2d 812, 815 (Fla. 1994) ( “In Florida, a plaintiff may properly bring a cause of action alleging tortious interference with present or prospective customers but no cause of action exists for tortious interference with a business’s relationship to the community at large. As a general rule, an action for tortious interference with a business relationship requires a business relationship evidenced by an actual and identifiable understanding or agreement which in all probability would have been completed if the defendant had not interfered.”)(internal citation omitted)(emphasis added); B & D Nutritional Ingredients, Inc. v. Unique Bio Ingredients, LLC, 758 Fed.Appx. 785, 791 (11th Cir. 2018).

(12) Even if the defendant is aware of the existing business relationship, the defendant will not be liable for tortious interference with that relationship unless there is evidence that the defendant intended to procure a breach of the contract. University of W. Fla. Bd. of Tr. v. Habegger, 125 So.3d 323, 326 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Alday–Donalson Title Co. of Fla., Inc., 832 So.2d 810, 814 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).

[/MM_Access_Decision]