New Post on the Day on Torts dated 02/03/2023
View this email in your browser

Day on Torts

Published by Day on Torts — Tennessee Personal Injury Attorney — The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Intentional interference with business relationships under the GTLA.

By The Law Offices of John Day, P.C. on Feb 02, 2023 06:03 am

While a claim for intentional interference with business relationships does not “arise out of a claim for interference with contract rights” and is thus not expressly listed in the GTLA as a cause of action for which a governmental entity retains immunity, because it is an intentional tort, a plaintiff seeking to assert an intentional interference with business relationships claim against a governmental entity must still show negligent supervision or some direct negligence by the entity.

In Robinson v. City of Clarksville, Tennessee, No. M2019-02053-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2023), plaintiffs owned a restaurant in defendant City. In 2002, plaintiffs sold a portion of an empty lot next to the restaurant to defendant. Plaintiffs claim that the mayor at the time promised that the City would install utilities and build a public alleyway on the property. In 2015, plaintiffs decided to build a second restaurant on the empty lot and asked the City to build the promised alleyway, which the City refused to do. Further, while constructing a sewer line, the City inadvertently placed part of the line on plaintiffs’ property. This suit followed, asserting several contract and property claims, as well as a tort claim for intentional interference with business relationships. The trial court dismissed the tort claim against the City pursuant to the GTLA, and dismissal was affirmed on appeal.

The only tort claim at issue in this case was plaintiff’s claim of intentional interference with business relationships. While governmental entities are generally immune from suit, the GTLA specifically removes immunity for certain claims. At issue here was Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-205, which states that immunity is not removed “if the injury arises out of…interference with contract rights.” Based on this language, the trial court ruled that immunity was not removed, but the Court of Appeals disagreed with this analysis.


Read in browser »
share on Twitter Like Intentional interference with business relationships under the GTLA. on Facebook



 

Recent Articles:

Jury award to plaintiff affirmed where defendant presented evidence that some damages were not caused by the car accident.
Apartment that failed to maintain wooden bridge liable to tenant in premises liability suit.
Dismissal of negligent misrepresentation claim affirmed.
Misinterpretation of the law not deemed excusable neglect under Rule 6.02.
Funeral home had no duty to supervise burial of body.
Copyright © 2023 The Law Offices of John Day, P.C., All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you opted in at our website

Our mailing address is:
The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.
5141 Virginia Way
#270
Brentwood, TN 37027

Add us to your address book


Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list

Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp