American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Central Office Telephone, Inc., 524 U.S. 214, 19 (1998)

Page:   Index   Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

232

AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. v. CENTRAL OFFICE TELEPHONE, INC. Stevens, J., dissenting

allegation of slamming in respondent's amended complaint; 1 in the District Court, AT&T's trial counsel took issue with respondent's effort to make slamming "a big part of this case," id., at 2170, and said in closing argument that slamming "is the basis for this intentional interference" claim, id., at 2921; and nothing in the jury instructions remotely suggested that the tort claim required proof of broken promises by AT&T to provide additional services. Respondent's evidence easily fits within the definition of intentional interference set forth in the jury charge:

"COT asserts that AT&T intentionally interfered with its business relations and expectations of future business relations with its customers, the end users of its SDN service. In order to prevail on this claim, COT must prove by a preponderance of the evidence, one, that COT had business relations with the probability of future economic benefit. Two, that AT&T was aware of the relationships and expectation of future benefits. Three, that AT&T intentionally interfered with COT's business relations. Four, that AT&T interfered for an improper motive or by using improper means. And, five, that COT suffered economic injury as a result of the interference." App. 71.

It may be the fact that the billing disclosures and slamming were the consequence of negligence rather than a deliberate plan to take over a network of customers that respondent had developed, but the jury concluded otherwise. It found that petitioner acted intentionally and willfully in interfering with respondent's business relations. See ibid.2 That finding is doubly significant.

1 "[D]espite repeated requests by COT to AT&T, AT&T failed to rectify incidents of unauthorized changes made in the designated carriers ('slamming') of COT's customers." App. 28.

2 The jury's $13 million damages award, reduced by the Magistrate Judge to $1.154 million, did not differentiate between the contract and tort claims.

Page:   Index   Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007