FLORIDA TELEPHONE CORPORATION, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
ERWIN ESSIG; NORMA ESSIG AND KEVIN ESSIG, APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida Telephone Corporation appealed a judgment for tortious interference with a contractual relationship filed by independent cable splicers (Essig). The court reversed, holding that FTC had an express contractual right to remove workers from jobs, which constituted a complete defense to the tort claim regardless of FTC's motive.
FTC is not liable for tortious interference because the contract between FTC and Edwards expressly reserved FTC's right to request removal of contractors' employees, thereby giving FTC a complete privilege to interfere with the Essigs' subcontracting relationship. This privilege exists regardless of FTC's motive for exercising the right.
[1] A party to a contract is privileged to interfere with a subcontract if the contract expressly reserves the right to remove employees of the contractor or its subcontracto…
[2] A cause of action for tortious interference with a contractual relationship requires proof of the defendant's intentional procurement of the contract's breach and the abs…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In the contract between FTC and Edwards there was a provision: (f) The Telephone Company reserves the right to request the Contractor to promptly remove from the job any employee(s) of the Contractor or its sub-contractors who, in the sole opinion of the Telephone Company, is not doing an adequate job or is conducting himself in a manner as to reflect unfavorably upon the Telephone Company, and the Contractor agrees to comply with such requests.”
The contractual provision that forms the basis for FTC's absolute privilege to remove the Essigs from jobs.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFTC hired Edwards as general contractor to splice telephone cable. Edwards subcontracted the work to independent cable splicers, including the Essigs.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Elements Of Tortious Interference cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal and cross-appeal from a judgment for the plaintiffs in an action for tortious interference with a contractual relationship. Because we conclude the lower court erred in failing to direct a verdict in favor of appellant Florida Telephone Corporation, we do not address the other points raised on appeal, or in the cross-appeal.
Florida Telephone Corporation (FTC) hired H.L. Edwards Corporation (Edwards), as general contractor, to splice telephone cable. As was its custom, and the custom in the industry, Edwards subcontracted the cable splicing jobs to various independent cable splicers. Appellees Essig are such independent splicers who subcontracted with Edwards to work on FTC jobs.
The elements of a cause of action for tortious interference with a contractual relationship are:
(1) The existence of a contract,
(2) The defendant’s knowledge of the contract,
(3) The defendant's intentional procurement of the contract’s breach,
(4) Absence of any justification or privilege,
(5) Damages resulting from the breach. Sullivan v. Economic Research Properties, 455 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); McDonald v. McGowan, 402 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), pet. for rev. dism., 411 So. 2d 380 (Fla.1981); Heavenner, Ogier Services v. R. W. Fla. Region, 418 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Insurance Field Services v. White and White Inspection, 384 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Accord Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc. v. J.C. Cotton, 463 So. 2d 1126 (Fla.1985) (elements of cause of action for tortious interference with business relationship). In the instant case, FTC was privileged to forbid Edwards from using the Essigs on FTC jobs. Therefore, appellees Essig failed to establish element (4) of their cause of action.
In the contract between FTC and Edwards there was a provision:
(f) The Telephone Company reserves the right to request the Contractor to promptly remove from the job any employee(s) of the Contractor or its sub-contractors who, in the sole opinion of the Telephone Company, is not doing an adequate job or is conducting himself in a manner as to reflect unfavorably upon the Telephone Company, and the Contractor agrees to comply with such requests.
The parties do not contest the validity of this contractual provision. Although the Essigs alleged appellant was motivated by a malicious intent, there was no real evidence of that and even if there was, it is of no legal import. Ethyl Corporation v. Balter, 386 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), pet. for rev. den., 392 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 1981), cert. den., 452 U.S. 955, 101 S.Ct. 3099, 69 L.Ed.2d 965 (1981); Wackenhut Corporation v. Maimone, 389 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), pet. for rev. den., 411 So. 2d 383 (Fla.1981). The fact that FTC may have acted because one of the Essigs’ sons was convicted of theft, or because Erwin Essig took insulators from abandoned telephone poles twenty years ago, or simply because FTC’s employees disliked the Essigs, is irrelevant. FTC expressly reserved the right to remove the Essigs, or any cable splicer, from FTC jobs; it was therefore privileged to interfere with their relationship with the H.L. Edwards Corporation, regardless of motive.
The final judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the case is remanded. On remand, the trial court is instructed to enter final judgment in favor of appellant/cross-appellee, Florida Telephone Corporation.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr. and SHARP, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (24 total)
-
McCURDY v. J.C. Collis & Exxon Corp., 508 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…tentional.2 Florida Power & Light Co. v. Fleitas, 488 [*384] So. 2d at 151. Similarly, there is no cause of action for tortious interference when a contract provision expressly reserved the right to interfere. Florida Telephone Corporation v. Essig, 468 So. 2d 543, 544 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). In those circumstances in which there is a qualified privilege to interfere with a business relationship, the privilege carries with it the obligation to employ means that are not improper. Peacock v. GMAC, 432 So. 2d at 1…
-
McKINNEY-Green, Inc. v. Davis, 606 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…57 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Ostman v. Lawn, 305 So. 2d 871, 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). An essential element for the establishment of a tortious interference with a contractual relationship is the existence of a contract. Florida Teleph. Corp. v. Essig, 468 So. 2d 543, 544 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). However, M-G’s argument fails because M-G was not a party to or beneficiary of the interfered-with agreement, and nothing in the allegations indicates the parties to that agreement were unwilling to perform. Commercial Unio…
-
Sobi v. Fairfield Resorts, Inc., 846 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…. 2d 500, 501 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (citing Caretta Trucking, Inc. v. Cheoy Lee Shipyards, Ltd., 647 So. 2d 1028, 1030 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)). Id. at 734-35. . In reaching this conclusion, we note parenthetically that Florida Telephone Corp. v. Essig, 468 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), which Fairfield relies on to support its contention that, as a matter of law, Fairfield's interference was justified by the non-compete contract it had with Sobi, is distinguishable. There, neither party to the non-compete agree…
Previewing 3 of 24 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc. v. J.C. Cotton and Aubrey Jesse Cotton, 463 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1985)
- Politis v. Gen. Hotel & Rest. Supply Corp., 386 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Balter v. Ethyl Corp., 452 U.S. 955 (U.S. 1981)
- Wackenhut Corp. v. Maimone, 389 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Ins. Field Servs., Inc. v. White & White Inspection & Audit Serv., Inc., 384 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- McDONALD v. McGOWAN, 402 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Heavener v. R. W. Fla. Region, Inc., 418 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Sullivan v. Econ. Research Props., 455 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)