- 18 -
claim were received on account of personal injuries within the
meaning of section 104(a)(2). Accordingly, we sustain
respondent’s determination on this issue.
3. Petitioner’s Compensatory Damages for Interference With
a Business Relationship
Tortious interference with a business relationship is part
of a larger body of tort law aimed at protecting relationships,
some economic (for example, interference with prospective
economic advantage) and some personal (for example, interference
with family relations, or libel and slander). Keeton et al.,
Prosser & Keeton on Torts, sec. 129, at 978 and nn.5 and 6 (5th
ed. 1984). Under Florida law, tortious interference with a
business relationship is “basically the same cause of action” as
interference with a contract. Smith v. Ocean State Bank, 335
So. 2d 641, 642 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976).
Petitioner’s claim of tortious interference with a business
relationship required proof of each of the following three
elements: (1) The existence of a business relationship under
which the plaintiff has legal rights; (2) an intentional and
unjustified interference with the relationship by the defendant;
and (3) damage to the plaintiff as a result of the tortious
interference with the relationship. Gregg v. U.S. Indus., Inc.,
887 F.2d 1462, 1473 (11th Cir. 1989).
Petitioner’s complaint in the third jury trial focused
almost entirely on the economic injury petitioner suffered as a
consequence of USI’s interference with his business relationship
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011