Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contracttortdefendantliabilitytrialsummary judgment

contracttortplaintiffdefendantliabilityappealtrialsummary judgment

Related Cases

Watson’s Carpet and Floor Coverings, Inc. v. McCormick, Not Reported in S.W.3d, 2002 WL 562577

Facts

Watson's Carpet and Floor Coverings, Inc. filed a petition to rehear, arguing that the court's original opinion was in conflict with Trau-Med of America, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Co., which had been filed three months prior to Watson's brief. The court recognized that Trau-Med established that tortious interference with a non-contractual business relationship was a viable cause of action in Tennessee, and the Supreme Court affirmed this point, narrowing the holding of a previous case relied upon in the original opinion.

The Plaintiff, Watson's Carpet and Floor Coverings, Inc., files a petition to rehear, principally contending that our original opinion was in conflict with Trau-Med of America, Inc., et al. v. Allstate Insurance Co., et al., 2000 WL1839125 (November 29, 2000), which was not called to our attention, although it had been filed some three months before Watson's brief was filed.

Issue

Whether the original opinion conflicted with the ruling in Trau-Med of America, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Co. regarding tortious interference with a business relationship.

Rule

An action for tortious interference with an ongoing, although not contractual, business relationship is a viable cause of action in Tennessee.

the Western Section of this Court found that an action for tortious interference with an ongoing-although not contractual-business relationship was a viable cause of action in this State.

Analysis

The court applied the ruling from Trau-Med, which affirmed the viability of tortious interference claims, to the facts of the case. It recognized that the original opinion did not adequately consider the implications of the Trau-Med decision, leading to a conflict. The court found that there were disputed issues of material fact regarding the defendants' liability, which necessitated a trial rather than a summary judgment.

In light of the foregoing, we deem it appropriate to vacate our previous opinion and instead-because there are disputed issues of material facts bearing on the question of the Defendants' liability which would preclude entry of a summary judgment-remand the case for trial in accordance with the directives of the Supreme Court in Trau-Med.

Conclusion

The court vacated its previous opinion and remanded the case for trial due to the existence of disputed material facts.

For the foregoing reasons costs of appeal, as well as below, are adjudged against Rick McCormick and Carpet Den, Inc.

Who won?

Watson's Carpet and Floor Coverings, Inc. prevailed in the sense that the court agreed to rehear the case and remand it for trial, acknowledging the conflict with Trau-Med.

Watson's Carpet and Floor Coverings, Inc. prevails in the sense that the court agreed to rehear the case and remand it for trial.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Neighbarger v. Irwin Industries, Inc., 8 Cal.4th 532, 882 P.2d 347, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 630, 59 Cal. Comp. Cases 875

City of Portland v. Boeing Co., 179 F.Supp.2d 1190, 52 ERC 1977

Hansen v. Friend, 118 Wash.2d 476, 824 P.2d 483

Cox v. May Dept. Store Co., 183 Ariz. 361, 903 P.2d 1119

Street v. Calvert, 541 S.W.2d 576