PRESTRESS ERECTORS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES TALCOTT, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
Prestress Erectors appeals a directed verdict in its tort action against James Talcott for tortious interference with contract. The court affirms, holding that merely exercising legal rights under an assignment does not constitute tortious interference absent evidence of malice or wrongful prevention of funds justly due.
No. Merely exercising legal rights under an assignment does not constitute tortious interference with contract. Tortious interference requires evidence beyond simply claiming what one is legally entitled to; it requires showing malicious prevention of funds justly due to the other party.
[1] Exercising rights accruing under a prior assignment does not constitute tortious interference with subsequent accruing rights to collect for work performed, absent eviden…
[2] A claim for tortious interference requires proof of malicious conduct beyond merely asserting legal rights under an assignment.
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“If the evidence had been such to show that in addition to receiving what it was entitled to it had maliciously prevented the appellant from receiving funds justly due it, then possibly the appellant would have maintained a tortious claim.”
Establishes that mere exercise of legal rights is insufficient for tortious interference; malice or wrongful prevention is required.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePrestress Erectors contracted with a general contractor to perform work. James Talcott held a prior assignment of rights from that general contractor.…
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 Contractual Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
This is the third appearance of this cause in this court. See: Prestress Erectors, Inc. v. James Talcott, Inc., Fla.App.1968, 213 So.2d 296; Prestress Erectors, Inc. v. James Talcott, Inc., Fla.App.1970, 235 So.2d 739. The first cited opinion sets forth the relationship of the parties and returned the matter for trial on one count contained in the plaintiff’s complaint alleging tor-tious interference with a contractual relationship. When the matter came on for trial at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case, the trial court directed a verdict and this appeal ensued.
It is the contention of the appellant that because Talcott exercised its rights accruing under a prior assignment from the appellant’s general contractor this constituted a tortious interference with the subsequent accruing rights of the appellant to collect for work performed under a contract with the general contractor, relying heavily on this court’s opinion reported in Prestress Erectors, Inc. v. James Talcott, Inc., Fla.App.1968, 213 So.2d 296, and the reliance therein on Union Indemnity Co. v. City of New Smyrna, 100 Fla. 980, 130 So. 453.
We have reexamined the first opinion of this court in this cause and the case of Union Indemnity Co. v. City of New Smyrna, supra, and do not believe that they support the position urged by the appellant. First, the case of Union Indemnity Co. v. City of New Smyrna, supra, turned on the *565terms of a surety bond on a public works contract. Second, the first opinion of this court was discussing the propriety of the entry of a summary judgment for Talcott when there were conflicting affidavits in the record. At the time of the trial of this cause, the evidence actually presented to the trial court did not establish any more than the fact that Talcott claimed what it was legally entitled to under its assignment. If the evidence had been such to show that in addition to receiving what it was entitled to it had maliciously prevented the appellant from receiving funds justly due it, then possibly the appellant would have maintained a tortious claim. But, we fail to find such in the record in this cause and we do not believe that cases turning on the priority of assignments, mechanics lien law, or contract rights are to be controlling when the action sounds in tort.
We have examined the other point urged for reversal and find it to be without merit, in light of the above and foregoing.
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the final judgment here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Prestress Erectors, Inc. v. James Talcott, Inc., 262 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 1972)…Certiorari denied. 256 So. 2d 564. ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Union Indem. Co. v. City of New Smyrna, 100 Fla. 980 (Fla. 1930)
- Prestress Erectors, Inc. v. James Talcott, Inc., 213 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Prestress Erectors, Inc. v. James Talcott, Inc., 235 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)