Top Service Body Shop, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Company
582 P.2d 1365 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claim for intentional interference with economic relations requires proof that the interference was wrongful by some measure beyond the interference itself, such as through the defendant's improper motives or use of improper means.
Facts:
- Top Service Body Shop, Inc. ('Top Service') operated an automobile body repair shop in Coos Bay, Oregon.
- Allstate Insurance Co. ('Allstate') at one time designated Top Service as a 'drive-in' shop where its insurance adjusters would send claimants for repair estimates.
- After a dispute, Top Service's owner decided to no longer operate as a drive-in shop for Allstate.
- Following this change, Allstate adjusters began actively discouraging their insurance claimants from taking repair work to Top Service.
- Allstate directed its claimants to other local shops on its preferred 'competitive shops' list instead.
- On a few occasions, Allstate adjusters made disparaging remarks about the quality of Top Service's work.
- Allstate also sought and received price discounts and concessions from other body shops that Top Service was unwilling to provide.
Procedural Posture:
- Top Service Body Shop, Inc. sued Allstate Insurance Co. in an Oregon trial court.
- The complaint included claims for tortious interference with business and statutory price discrimination.
- A jury returned verdicts in favor of Top Service on both claims, awarding compensatory and punitive damages.
- Allstate moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), arguing the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts.
- The trial court granted Allstate's motion for JNOV on both causes of action.
- Top Service, as appellant, appealed the trial court's JNOV order to the Supreme Court of Oregon.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a claim for tortious interference with economic relations require the plaintiff to prove that the defendant's interference was wrongful due to either an improper motive or the use of improper means?
Opinions:
Majority - Linde, J.
Yes. A claim for intentional interference with contractual or other economic relations is made out only when the interference is wrongful by some measure beyond the fact of the interference itself. A defendant’s liability may arise from either improper motives (e.g., a specific purpose to harm the plaintiff) or the use of improper means (e.g., fraud, threats, or statutory violations). The court rejected the older 'prima facie tort' theory that any intentional infliction of harm is tortious unless justified. Instead, the wrongfulness of the conduct is an essential element of the plaintiff's case. In this case, Top Service failed to produce sufficient evidence that Allstate acted with an improper motive, such as a 'sole design' to destroy Top Service's business. The evidence showed Allstate's actions, while harmful to Top Service, were consistent with the pursuit of its own legitimate business interests. Because the case was submitted to the jury only on the improper motive theory, the court could not affirm the verdict on the alternative, unargued theory of improper means.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the elements of the tort of intentional interference with economic relations in Oregon, moving away from the broad 'prima facie tort' doctrine. It establishes that a plaintiff must prove not just that a defendant intentionally interfered, but that the interference was independently wrongful due to either motive or means. This holding raises the bar for plaintiffs in business competition cases, protecting defendants who act aggressively but legitimately to advance their own economic interests. The case aligns Oregon law with the modern approach articulated in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, requiring a specific showing of wrongful conduct rather than placing the burden on the defendant to justify any intentional act that causes harm.
