Tortious Interference
Malice can be presumed from nature of act in tortious interference claim
In Fuller & Associates v. Heil Windermere Moving & Storage Co., 2005 WL 1242184 (Ohio App. 5 Dist.), the Ohio Appellate Court for the Fifth District heard the appeal of a tortious interference with contract case in which a business broker sued several defendants in order to obtain his commission on a sale of a business. He alleged as one of his causes of action, tortious interference with contract; the elements of which are (1) a contract; (2) the wrongdoer’s knowledge of the contract; (3) the intentional procurement of a breach; (4) the absence of justification; and (5) damages resulting from the breach. Tortious interference with a contract means: (1) the defendant’s conduct interfered with the business rights of the plaintiffs; and (2) taking into consideration the situation and relationship between the parties, such conduct on behalf of the defendant was not privileged.
Bearing on the elements of privilege and absence of justification in procuring a breach of the contract is the issue of malice. The court determined that malice could be presumed from the nature of the act: “Malice may be inferred from or imputed to a common design by two or more persons to cause harm to another and need not be proven separately or expressly.” Thus defendants arguing for independent proof of malice can be countered by an inference of malice simply from the wrongful nature of the act committed against plaintiff.