 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Trau-Med Of America11/29/2000
t Bellevue"; have named Bellevue Clinic on a "hit list"circulated among defendant's employees; and have filed pleadings and sought multiple copies of discovery documents in defending their insured, for the sole purpose of carrying out the conspiracy to intimidate and destroy plaintiff's reputation, business and clinic. We believe that Trau-Med has sufficiently stated a claim for conspiracy based on the alleged interference with existing business relationships. However, we do not agree with appellant that a claim for conspiracy is stated based on defendant's actions in defending suits against its insured. "There can be no conspiracy where the acts complained of, and the means employed in the doing of the acts, are lawful, and so long as the parties seek only to further their own fair interests, they will not be liable for any merely incidental damage to another." Breuss v. L'Audace, Inc. No. 01A-0109106-CH-00236, 1992 WL 9440, *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 1992) (quoting 16 Am.Jur.2d Conspiracy ยง 49 (1979)(defendants had not conspired in exercising their legal right to control the assets of the corporation to plaintiff's exclusion); see alsoEmerson v. Machamer, 221 Tenn. 739, 745-46, 431 S.W.2d 283, 286 (1968) (filing a suit for divorce can not give rise to a cause of action of conspiracy since such filing is a lawful act.); and Smokey Mountains Beverage Co. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 182 F.Supp. 326 (E.D.Tenn. 1960) (no conspiracy existed where defendant corporation had removed plaintiff as their east Tennessee distributor because the business judgment of defendant was not to be questioned by the court).
Issuing the subpoenas and filing the motions were lawful acts in defense of Allstate's insured. Consequently, in viewing the facts alleged in Trau-Med's complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, we conclude that Tra-Med has stated a claim for civil conspiracy based on interference with an existing business relationship. However, the claim cannot be based on legal actions taken by defendants in defense of suits against its insured. Therefore, the trial court's dismissal of Count V of Trau-Med's complaint is reversed.
In sum, the trial court's order dismissing Count I, interference with Trau- Med's business, and Count V, engaging in a conspiracy, is reversed. The trial court's order dismissing Count III of Trau-Med's complaint is affirmed. This case is remanded for such further proceedings as may be necessary. Costs for the appeal are assessed against appellees, Allstate Insurance Company, Vickie Harris, Charles D. Farrell, Leslie Johnson and Ron Iden.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|