Section 48 Tortious Interference With Contract and Business Expectations

• Library: Damages 2012

In Horizon Memorial Group, L.L.C. v. Bailey, 280 S.W.3d 657, 663 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009), the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, held that a plaintiff who establishes a case for intentional interference does not necessarily make a submissible case for punitive damages. Id. at 662. The reason is two-fold: First, tortious interference must only be proved by a preponderance of the evidence, while punitive damages must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. Id. Second, the evidence supporting a punitive damage award relates to the defendant’s state of mind rather then the mere commission or act of an intentional tort. Id. at 663. The court seemed to be saying that, while punitive damages can be established by inferring evil or wrongful motive based on a defendant’s acts or omissions, it is not the mere commission of the act, but rather the motive inferred from it, that supports a punitive damages submission. Id. Therefore, the court determined that, while the defendants in that case intentionally interfered with a noncompete agreement, they did not do so in such a way that rose to the level of outrageous conduct and from which evil motive could be inferred. Id. The act was intentional, but it was...