Chapter 22 - § 22.2 • ELEMENTS

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

§ 22.2 • ELEMENTS

To succeed on a claim of intentional interference with contract, a plaintiff must prove the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence:

1) The plaintiff had a contract with a third party;
2) The defendant knew or reasonably should have known of the contract;
3) The defendant, by words or conduct or both, intentionally interfered with the performance of the contract so that the third party did not perform, did not perform fully, or terminated the contract;
4) The defendant's interference with the contract was improper; and
5) The defendant's interference with the contract caused the plaintiff damages or losses.⁷

Tortious interference with prospective business relations has essentially the same elements as tortious interference with a contract, except that it does not require an existing contract, only a "prospective contractual relation."⁸ Thus, while the existence of an underlying contract is not required, there still must be "a showing of improper and intentional interference by the defendant that prevents the formation of a contract between the plaintiff and a third party."⁹ Furthermore, the plaintiff must show that "there is a reasonable likelihood or probability that a contract would have resulted; there must be something beyond a mere hope."¹⁰

--------

Notes:

^[7] CJI-Civ. 24:1 (CLE ed. 2018); see, e.g., Krystkowiak v. W.O. Brisben Companies, Inc., 90 P.3d 859, 871 (Colo. 2004); Warne, 373 P.3d at 595; Arapahoe Surgery Center, LLC v. Cigna Healthcare Inc., 171 F. Supp. 3d 1092 (D. Colo. 2016); Gas Prod. Corp. v. BTU Mktg., LLC, No. 16-cv-02747-MEH, 2017 WL 491191, at *5 (D. Colo. Feb. 7, 2017); Cunningham Lindsey U.S., Inc. v. Crawford & Co. No. 17-cv-03041-CMA-KLM, 2018 WL 6307865 *2 (D. Colo. Dec. 3, 2018), recommendation affirmed and adopted, No. 17-cv-03041-CMA-KLM, 2019 WL 120762 (D. Colo. Jan. 7, 2019).

^[8] MDM Group Assocs., 165 P.3d at 886; Daniluk v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., No. 13-cv-01304-CMA-CBS, 2015 WL 148560, at *3 (D. Colo. Jan. 12, 2015); Jones v. Lehmkuhl, No. 11-cv-02384-WYD-CBS, 2013 WL 6728951, at *23 (D. Colo. Dec. 20, 2013); L-3 Commc'ns Corp. v. Jaxon Eng'g & Maint., Inc., No. 10-cv-02868-MSK-KMT, 2013 WL 1231908, at *5 (D. Colo. Feb. 25, 2013), report and recommendation adopted, No. 10-cv-02868-MSK-KMT, 2013 WL 1231875 (D. Colo. Mar. 27, 2013) (stating that to state a claim for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, plaintiff must allege facts supporting: (1) that defendant induced a...