INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT
RELATIONSHIP OR BUSINESS EXPECTANCY
Elements
“The elements of a cause of action for intentional interference with contract are
(1) a contract between the plaintiff and a third party,
(2) knowledge of the defendant that the contract exists,
(3 intentional interference by the defendant that caused the third party to breach the contract,
(4) a showing that the defendant acted improperly, and
(5) a showing that damage resulted to the plaintiff.”
Pasco Indus., Inc. v. Talco Recycling, Inc., 195 Ariz. 50, 62, ¶ 54, 985 P.2d 535, 547 (App. Div. 1, 1998). See also Snow v. W. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 152 Ariz. 27, 34, 730 P.2d 204, 211 (1987); Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem. Hosp., 147 Ariz. 370, 386-88, 710 P.2d 1025, 1041-43 (1985).
Proof
“[P]roof that an actor intentionally induced a breach of contract is not sufficient to establish that the actor’s conduct was improper. Rather, there is a requirement that the interference be both intentional and improper. If the interferer is to be held liable for committing a wrong, his liability must be based on more than the act of interference alone. Thus, there is ordinarily no liability absent a showing that defendant’s actions were improper as to motive or means.” Safeway Ins. Co., Inc. v. Guerrero, 210 Ariz. 5, 11, ¶ 20, 106 P.3d 1020, 1026 (2005) (internal quotations omitted) (emphasis in original).
“While the ‘intentional’ element of tortious interference focuses on the mental state of the actor, the ‘improper’ element in contrast generally is determined by weighing the social importance of the interest the defendant seeks to advance against the interest invaded. Our case law thus emphasizes that a plaintiff must show more than the defendant’s knowledge that his or her conduct would induce a breach to establish intentional interference with contractual relations.” Safeway Ins. Co., Inc. v. Guerrero, 210 Ariz. 5, 11, ¶ 21, 106 P.3d 1020, 1026 (2005) (internal quotations omitted).
Courts “give the greatest weight to the first two factors, the nature of the defendant’s conduct and the defendant’s motive.” Safeway Ins. Co., Inc. v. Guerrero, 210 Ariz. 5, 12, ¶ 22, 106 P.3d 1020, 1027 (2005).
“Fraudulent misrepresentation or concealment can, under certain circumstances, constitute ‘improper conduct’ for purposes of the intentional interference tort.” Safeway Ins. Co., Inc. v. Guerrero, 210 Ariz. 5, 13, ¶ 28, 106 P.3d 1020, 1028 (2005).
“[I]ntent is shown by proving that the interferor...
