INTERFERENCE WITH EXPECTED BUSINESS AS A TORT
Texas has long recognized the tort of interference with prospective business relations. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Sturges, 52 S.W.3d 711, 712-13 (Tex. 2001).
Although the Texas
Supreme Court has never set forth the elements for this claim, see
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Fin. Review Servs., Inc., 29 S.W.3d 74, 78
(Tex. 2000), several appellate courts have. See, e.g., Tex. Integrated
Conveyor Sys., Inc. v. Innovative Conveyor Concepts, Inc., 300 S.W.3d 348,
367 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2009, pet. denied); Labor v. Warren, 268 S.W.3d 273,
278 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2008, no pet.); Tex. Disposal Sys. Landfill, Inc. v.
Waste Management Holdings, Inc., 219 S.W.3d 563, 590 (Tex. App.-Austin
2007, pets. denied); Baty v. ProTech Ins. Agency, 63 S.W.3d 841, 860
(Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pets. denied).
These courts hold
that to establish a claim for tortious interference with prospective business
relations, a plaintiff must show: (1) a reasonable probability that the parties
would have entered into a business relationship; (2) an intentional, malicious
intervention or an independently tortious or unlawful act performed by the
defendant with a desire to prevent the relationship or with the knowledge the
interference was likely to occur as a result of its conduct; (3) lack of
privilege or justification for the defendant's actions; and (4) actual harm or
damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the defendant's interference,
i.e., the defendant's actions prevented the relationship. Labor, 268
S.W.3d at 278.
SOURCE: SAN ANTONIOCOURT OF APPEALS - 04-13-00033-CV - 11/6/2013
