White Sands Group, L.L.C. v. PRS II, LLC

Summary

The Alabama Supreme Court reviewed consolidated appeals from summary judgment and subsequent cost awards in a dispute involving alleged tortious interference with a business relationship concerning the prospective purchase of real estate. The court clarified that the elements of the tort include a protectible business relationship, the defendant’s knowledge, the defendant’s status as a stranger to the relationship, intentional interference, and damage; justification is an affirmative defense, and fraud, force, or coercion is not a separate element. The court reversed and remanded the merits appeal and vacated and remanded the cost orders.

Holdings

1. The elements are: (1) the existence of a protectible business relationship; (2) the defendant's knowledge of that relationship; (3) the defendant's status as a stranger to the relationship; (4) intentional interference with the relationship; and (5) damage.
2. Absence of justification is not an element of a plaintiff's prima facie case for wrongful interference with a business or contractual relationship; justification is an affirmative defense to be pleaded and proved by the defendant.
3. Fraud, force, or coercion is not an element of the tort of wrongful interference with a business relationship.
4. White Sands produced substantial evidence of a protectible business relationship or reasonable commercial expectancy, even though the parties did not have an enforceable contract.
5. PRS II did not establish entitlement to summary judgment on its affirmative defense of justification.
6. Sterling and Asfour were not entitled to summary judgment because their motion contained no supporting evidentiary material and their factual narrative did not include the specific references required by Rule 56.
7. The orders taxing costs against White Sands and Valentine had to be vacated because the underlying summary judgment was reversed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether White Sands presented substantial evidence of a protectible business relationship, intentional interference, and damage sufficient to defeat summary judgment.
2. Whether absence of justification is an element of a plaintiff's prima facie tortious-interference claim or an affirmative defense to be pleaded and proved by the defendant.
3. Whether fraud, force, or coercion is an element of Alabama's tort of wrongful interference with a business relationship.
4. Whether PRS II established entitlement to summary judgment on the affirmative defense of justification, including the competitor's privilege.
5. Whether Sterling and Asfour were entitled to summary judgment when their motion and factual narrative lacked supporting evidentiary material required by Rule 56.
6. Whether the trial court's cost orders could stand after reversal of the underlying summary judgment.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded