 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Watson's Carpet and Floor Coverings1/30/2002
This is a suit by Watson's Carpet and Floor Coverings, Inc., seeking damages for intentional interference with a business relationship and civil conspiracy. The Trial Judge found, under the authority of Nelson v. Martin, 958 S.W.2d 643 (Tenn. 1997), that no such cause of action exists in Tennessee. He also awarded discretionary costs to all of the Defendants, and attorney fees to the Defendants, Rick McCormick and his Corporation, Carpet Den, Inc. The Plaintiff appeals contesting all of the Court's determinations. We affirm.
Tenn.R.App.P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed; Cause Remanded
Houston M. Goddard, P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Herschel P. Franks and Charles D. Susano, Jr., JJ., joined.
OPINION
This is a suit by Watson's Carpet and Floor Coverings, Inc., seeking damage against Rick McCormick, his Corporation, Carpet Den, Inc., and Mohawk Industries, Inc., for intentional interference with a business relationship and civil conspiracy.
The principal question raised on appeal is whether interference with a business relationship which is not supported by a contract is a viable cause of action under Tennessee Jurisprudence. The Trial Judge held that it was not.
A succinct statement of facts giving rise to this litigation is set out in the Plaintiff's brief in its statement of the case:
Plaintiff Watson's Carpet and Floor Coverings, Inc. sells, installs and services floor covering products such as carpet. Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant Carpet Den, Inc., which is also a retail carpet dealer, and Defendant Mohawk Industries, Inc., a carpet manufacturer and distributor. Plaintiff alleged that these Defendants committed the tort of intentional interference with business relationship by destroying a nine-year relationship Plaintiff had with a homebuilder called Centex Homes. Specifically, Defendant Mohawk Industries refused to sell Plaintiff a Portico private label carpet required by Centex in all of its homes beginning on January 1, 1999. Plaintiff also alleged that Defendants conspired to destroy Plaintiff's relationship with Centex, constituting the tort of civil conspiracy.
The general rules relative to our review of summary judgments, set out in Byrd v. Hall, 847 S.W.2d 208 (Tenn. 1993), are not applicable in the present case, wherein it is asserted that the Plaintiff's complaint does not state a viable cause of action. Such contention requires that we review the pertinent law and determine whether the Chancellor was correct in finding that no cause of action existed, sustaining the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing the complaint.
In Nelson v. Martin, 958 S.W.2d 643, 645 (Tenn. 1997), the case relied upon by the Trial Judge, the Supreme Court addressed a case wherein one shareholder sued the other two shareholders of a closely held corporation alleging wrongful termination of his employment and his wrongful removal as an officer and director.
This case holds that such a claim can only be maintained if it is found to be a part of the common law of this State. The Court found that it was not and in the course of the opinion stated the following:
Nelson insists that the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing his claim for wrongful interference with a prospective economic advantage. This claim is before the Court on the defendant's motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6). This claim has been asserted in this Court in two prior cases. In the first, Quality Auto Parts v. Bluff City Buick, 876 S.W.2d 818 (Tenn.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Tennessee Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|