 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Health Call of Detroit v. Atrium Home & Health Care Services9/8/2005
ld not amicably resolve the dispute, Steelcase contacted Greenheck and successfully induced it to terminate the Greenheck-Environair sales agreement. Environair proceeded to file suit against Steelcase, alleging tortious interference with a business relationship, tortious interference with a contract, and an independent claim for exemplary damages. The trial court ruled that Environair could only recover nominal damages for any claim of damages accruing after the date the contract was terminated. Environair, supra at 290-291.
This Court affirmed, relying on Sepanske v Bendix Corp, 147 Mich App 819; 384 NW2d 54 (1985).
In [Sepanske], the plaintiff was awarded damages for future lost earnings in an action for breach of a promise that he would be restored to either his former or a similar position. While this Court agreed that a breach of contract claim had been established, it vacated the award of damages. The Court found that the plaintiff's expectation was that he would be restored to the same or similar at-will position, one which the employer was free to alter or terminate without consequence. The Court held that the jury's damage assessment in such a situation was purely speculative:
"There is no tangible basis upon which damages may be assessed where plaintiff's expectation was for an at-will position which could have been changed or from which he could have been terminated without consequence."
The case was remanded to the trial court for entry of judgment in favor of the plaintiff for nominal damages only. [Environair, supra at 293-294 (citations omitted).]
The Environair panel, concluding that Sepanske's holding should apply equally to the loss of an at-will contract outside the context of an employment action, ruled:
While Sepanske involved an employment relationship, its holding regarding the speculative nature of damages is just as applicable to a non-employment situation also involving an at-will contractual relationship. Just as the employment relationship in Sepanske could have been terminated at any time without consequence, thereby providing "no tangible basis upon which damages may be assessed," so could the exclusive sales contract between Environair and Greenheck. Thus, in the present case, we agree with the trial court that there could be "no tangible basis upon which damages may be assessed" that would be any less speculative. [Environair, supra at 294.]
This ruling was directed at Environair's tortious interference with a contract claim. Id. The Court noted that Environair had not specifically challenged the trial court's ruling with respect to this claim, but rather, Environair argued that Sepanske did not affect its claim for tortious interference with a business relationship or expectancybecause the claim was not dependent upon the existence of a contract. Id. This Court, citing Feaheny, rejected the argument and held:
ecause the nature of the relationship between Environair and Greenheck was one founded upon a contract that was terminable at will, we conclude that there was no cognizable tortious interference cause of action independent of that contract, because Environair's mere subjective expectation of the continuation of the contract could not justify an expectation any greater.
Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not err in granting defendant's motion to limit damages. [Environair, supra at 295.]
As in Environair, plaintiff seeks future damages in the nature of lost profits for defendants' alleged improper role in facilitating Williams's termination of the at-will home nursing contract. The original Health Call panel opined that "Environair
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|