Fagin v. Inwood Nat’l Bank rejected a request to recognize “truth” as a defense to a tortious-interference claim, holding:

We agree with our sister courts’ reasoning. As with affirmative claims, recognizing an affirmative defense that the supreme court has expressly declined to adopt raises a “litany of questions regarding the contours and scope” of the defense that we are ill-suited to answer. We conclude that neither this court nor the trial court below can legitimately recognize, in the first instance, an affirmative defense of truth to a claim for tortious interference with an existing contract.

No. 05-21-00878-CV (footnotes omitted) (mem.op.).

The ongoing geyser of TCPA opinions continues with Dickens v. Webster, a tortious interference case arising from a dispute among attorneys about a contingent fee agreement. It offers three points of broad interest:

• The TCPA does not require that a statement be made to the public;
• For the “commercial speech” exemption to apply, the communications at issue must relate to the defendant’s services – not the plaintiff’s; and
• On page 15 of the opinion, a “road map” for establishing a prima facie case of tortious interference; here, the alleged substitution of one contract for another, accompanied by emails supporting the plaintiff’s version of events.

No. 05-17-00423-CV (Dec. 31, 2018) (mem. op)

Dickson, an attorney, alleged interference with his contingent fee contract that led to the abandonment of a promising appeal.  The Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the defense, noting: “Dickson’s summary judgment response below that the appeal was a ‘slam dunk’ is conclusory because it does not provide the underlying facts to support it.”  Dickson v. American Electric Power, Inc., No. 05-14-00690-CV (revised Jan. 15, 2016) (mem. op.)

Mark Palla filed suit against a group of defendants for breach of contract and tortious interference arising out of the breach of a sales commission agreement. The jury returned a verdict for $278,718 on the contract claim against Bio-One, Inc., and exactly $100,000 for tortious interference against Aydemir Arapoglu and Transtrade LLC. Palla argued that the tortious interference damages should have been the same as the breach of contract award and that each of the defendants should be jointly and severally liable for the entire amount. The trial court disagreed, entering judgment against Bio-One for $178,718 and against all three of the defendants, jointly and severally, for an additional $100,000. Palla appealed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed. Although generally the measure of damages for tortious interference is the same as the measure of damages for the breach of the contract, a tortious interference defendant is only liable for damages that are proximately caused by the interference. Thus, the question on appeal was whether there was any evidence that the defendants’ interference had only caused a portion of Palla’s damages. But Palla had not brought forward any record of the trial proceedings, due to the belief that he was entitled to the full amount of contract damages as a matter of law. Since the Court of Appeals could not determine whether the evidence supported only a partial damage award for tortious interference, Palla could not demonstrate that the trial court had erred by refusing to disregard the jury’s finding.

Palla v. Bio-One, Inc., No. 05-12-01657-CV