Trau-Med of America, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Co.
2002 Tenn. LEXIS 154, 71 S.W.3d 691 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claim for intentional interference with business relationships requires a plaintiff to prove the defendant used an improper motive or means to cause the termination of the relationship. However, a claim for civil conspiracy cannot be based on an agreement between a corporation and its own employees or agents when they are acting within the scope of their employment, under the intracorporate conspiracy immunity doctrine.
Facts:
- Trau-Med of America, Inc. ('Trau-Med') is a physician practice management company that accepts referrals from attorneys representing uninsured personal injury victims.
- Trau-Med provides administrative services to doctors who treat these victims and is compensated after the victims' legal claims are resolved.
- Allstate Insurance Company ('Allstate') allegedly devised a scheme to limit its claims expenses by attacking Trau-Med's business and reputation.
- Allstate allegedly made libelous statements and created defamatory documents to ruin Trau-Med's reputation within the legal community.
- Allstate allegedly directed attorneys it hired to defend its policyholders to file defamatory motions accusing Trau-Med of unlawful conduct, such as practicing medicine without a license.
- Allstate allegedly circulated a 'hit list' of targeted clinics, including Trau-Med, among its employees.
- Allstate's agents allegedly told plaintiffs' attorneys that they would 'get' Trau-Med and that any claimant treated by Trau-Med would be 'embroiled in unnecessary and expensive litigation'.
Procedural Posture:
- Trau-Med filed suit against Allstate and its agents in the Shelby County Circuit Court (trial court).
- Allstate filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6).
- The trial court granted Allstate's motion and dismissed Trau-Med's complaint in its entirety.
- Trau-Med, as appellant, appealed the dismissal of its tortious interference and conspiracy claims to the Tennessee Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of one claim but reversed the trial court's dismissal of the tortious interference and conspiracy claims, finding the complaint sufficient.
- Allstate, as appellant, appealed the Court of Appeals' decision to the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
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 complaint state a claim for (1) tortious interference with business relationships and (2) intracorporate civil conspiracy when it alleges an insurance company, acting through its own employees and agents, used improper means like defamatory statements and litigation tactics to intentionally destroy a medical clinic's business?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Barker
Yes, as to tortious interference with business relationships; No, as to intracorporate civil conspiracy. The complaint sufficiently alleges a claim for tortious interference with business relationships but fails to state a claim for civil conspiracy. The court formally adopts the tort of intentional interference with business relationships, overruling prior precedent in Nelson v. Martin. A plaintiff must now prove: (1) an existing or prospective business relationship; (2) the defendant's knowledge of it; (3) the defendant's intent to cause its breach or termination; (4) the defendant's use of improper motive or improper means; and (5) resulting damages. Trau-Med's allegations that Allstate used defamatory statements and instigated litigation with the predominant motive of destroying its business to limit Allstate's own claim expenses meet this standard. The court also held that the judicial privilege, which protects statements made in litigation, does not apply as a defense to this tort, limiting it to defamation claims. However, the civil conspiracy claim fails because the court adopts the intracorporate conspiracy immunity doctrine. This doctrine states that a corporation cannot conspire with its own employees or agents if they are acting within the scope of their employment, as they are considered a single legal entity and a conspiracy requires two or more persons. Trau-Med's complaint alleged Allstate's agents acted to further Allstate's corporate interests, thus they were acting within the scope of their employment and the plurality requirement for a conspiracy was not met.
Analysis:
This case is significant for formally establishing the tort of intentional interference with business relationships in Tennessee, providing a cause of action for businesses harmed by improper, non-competitive conduct that disrupts non-contractual economic advantages. By overruling prior case law, the court expanded tort liability to protect business expectancies from wrongful interference. Simultaneously, the court's adoption of the intracorporate conspiracy immunity doctrine provides a strong defense for corporations, shielding them from conspiracy claims based on the coordinated actions of their own employees who are acting in the company's interest. This decision clarifies the boundaries of both legitimate competition and corporate liability in the state.
Unlock the full brief for Trau-Med of America, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Co.