No. 14846
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1980
LARRY PHILLIPS,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
THE MONTANA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
a non-profit corporation; JOHN
BOARD; C. D. "BUD" BEAGLE; MAURICE
HICKEY; NOEL FURLONG and BETTY LOCKEY,
Defendants and Respondents.
Appeal from: District Court of the First Judicid District,
In and For the County of Lewis and Clark,
Honorable Peter Meloy, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Joseph Duffy argued, Great Falls, Montana
For Respondents:
Hilley and Loring, Great Falls, Montana
Jardine, Stephenson, Blewett and Weaver, Great Falls,
Montana
Alexander Blewett I11 argued, Great Falls, Montana
-- -
Submitted: December 12, 1979
Decided : at k 2 2 1980
,.
Filed: 9.;- L
Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of
the Court.
Appellant Larry L. Phillips appeals from an order and
judgment of the Lewis and Clark County District Court grant-
ing a motion by the Montana Education Association (herein
referred to as MEA); and John Board, C. D. " ~ u d "
Beagle,
Maurice Hickey, Noel Furlong, and Betty Lockey (herein
referred to as individual defendants) for summary judgment.
Phillips was hired by the MEA on April 2, 1974, and
commenced employment on July 1, 1974. The terms of his
employment as executive secretary were specified in a written,
two-year contract. On December 30, 1974, the Board of
Directors of the MEA terminated Phillips' contract and
employment as of December 30, 1974.
On January 28, 1975, Phillips filed a complaint against
the MEA alleging breach of employment contract and failure
to give the requisite three months notice of termination. On
March 19, 1976, Phillips filed an amended complaint and
alleged five counts which included the earlier claims, and
added claims for slander, malicious inducement by agents of
the MEA to breach the employment contract, and that the MEA
had blacklisted him from further employment. The amended
complaint added eight John and Mary Does as defendants.
The MEA made a number of motions to dismiss, strike, to
make more definite statements and to dismiss defendants. In
an order dated November 8, 1976, the District Court dis-
missed the slander count for failure to state a claim, and
struck Phillips' claim for punitive damages, penalties and
attorney fees.
Phillips appealed to this Court, and the MEA filed a
motion to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the order
was not appealable. This Court granted the MEA's motion
to dismiss the appeal, and the cause was remanded to the
District Court.
On August 1, 1977, the MEA deposed Phillips and he was
unable to provide information concerning the alleged mali-
cious inducement of breach of contract; and three days after
that deposition, the MEA served interrogatories on Phillips
seeking answers concerning the alleged malicious inducement
of breach of contract. Phillips did not answer the inter-
rogatories, and on April 3, 1978, the MEA filed a motion to
compel answers. A hearing was held on May 2, 1978, and the
District Court ordered Phillips to answer the interrogatories.
Phillips did not answer the interrogatories within the
time ordered by the District Court; and on August 31, 1978,
the MEA again filed a motion to dismiss the amended com-
plaint. A hearing was held on September 26, 1978, and the
District Court found that Phillips had violated the court
order by not answering the interrogatories; and ordered that
the amended complaint would be dismissed with prejudice if
Phillips did not answer the interrogatories by October 13,
1978. The District Court further found that Phillips had
failed to comply with a previous court order by not having
filed a second amended complaint, and ordered that Phillips'
complaint would be dismissed with prejudice if Phillips did
not file a second amended complaint by October 13, 1978.
Phillips filed a second amended complaint and answers to the
interrogatories on October 13, 1978.
On November 16, 1978, the MEA and the individual de-
fendants moved for summary judgment on count two, the al-
leged malicious inducement of breach of contract; and count
three, the alleged MEA blacklisting of Phillips from further
employment, of Phillips' second amended complaint.
The motion w a s b r i e f e d and a h e a r i n g h e l d ; and on A p r i l
4 , 1979, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d t h e motion f o r summary
judgment. On A p r i l 1 0 , 1979, f i n a l judgment was e n t e r e d
p u r s u a n t t o Rule 5 4 ( b ) , M0nt.R.Civ.P. The judgment s p e c i -
f i c a l l y s t a t e d t h a t P h i l l i p s was e n t i t l e d t o p r o c e e d w i t h
c o u n t s one and f o u r of t h e second amended c o m p l a i n t concern-
i n g t h e c a u s e of a c t i o n f o r b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t . Phillips
h a s n o t a p p e a l e d t h e g r a n t i n g of summary judgment on c o u n t
t h r e e ; therefore, P h i l l i p s ' appeal i s limited t o the grant-
i n g o f summary judgment on c o u n t two.
The f o l l o w i n g i s s u e i s r a i s e d by P h i l l i p s f o r o u r con-
s i d e r a t i o n on a p p e a l :
Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g summary
judgment on c o u n t two o f t h e second amended c o m p l a i n t
wherein P h i l l i p s a l l e g e d t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l d e f e n d a n t s were
p e r s o n a l l y l i a b l e f o r t h e t o r t of m a l i c i o u s inducement of
b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t .
Causes of a c t i o n f o r i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h c o n t r a c t r i g h t s
have l o n g been r e c o g n i z e d i n Montana. P e l t o n v . Markegard
(19781, - Mont. , 586 P.2d 306, 35 St.Rep. 1593; T a y l o r
v . Anaconda F e d e r a l C r e d i t Union ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 170 Mont. 51, 550
P.2d 151; Q u i n l i v a n v . Brown O i l Co. ( 1 9 3 4 ) , 96 Mont. 1 4 7 ,
29 P.2d 374; Burden v. E l l i n g S t a t e Bank ( 1 9 2 6 ) , 76 Mont.
2 4 , 245 P.958; Simonsen v. B a r t h ( 1 9 2 2 ) , 64 Mont. 95, 208 P.
938. See a l s o W. P r o s s e r , - - -of T o r t s , 5129 a t 927
The Law
( 4 t h Ed. 1975). A c o m p l a i n t s e e k i n g damages f o r i n d u c i n g a
b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t i s s u f f i c i e n t where i t a l l e g e s (1) t h a t a
c o n t r a c t was e n t e r e d i n t o , ( 2 ) t h a t i t s performance was
refused, ( 3 ) t h a t s u c h r e f u s a l was induced by t h e u n l a w f u l
and m ~ ~ l i c i o u s t s of t h e d e f e n d a n t , and ( 4 ) t h a t damages
ac
have r e s u l t e d t o t h e p l a i n t i f f . P e l t o n v . Markegard, s u p r a ,
586 P.2d a t 308; Burden v. E l l i n g S t a t e Bank, s u p r a ,
245 P . a t 959.
The law, i n d e p e n d e n t of t h e c o n t r a c t , imposes upon
s t r a n g e r s t o a c o n t r a c t t h e duty n o t t o i n t e r f e r e with i t s
performance. The v i o l a t i o n o f t h i s d u t y i s a t o r t , t h e
remedy f o r such i n t e r f e r e n c e i s by a c t i o n i n t o r t . Burden v .
E l l i n g S t a t e Bank, s u p r a , 245 P. a t 959. One t y p e o f i n t e r -
f e r e n c e w i t h economic r e l a t i o n s h a s been marked o u t r a t h e r
d e f i n i t e l y by t h e c o u r t s , and r e g a r d e d a s a s e p a r a t e t o r t ,
under t h e name of i n d u c i n g b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t .
The p a r t i e s do n o t d i s p u t e t h e f a c t t h a t P h i l l i p s h a s a
cause of a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e corporation f o r t h e a l l e g e d
b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t , and t h i s c a u s e of a c t i o n i s pending i n
D i s t r i c t Court. The f a c t t h a t t h e r e i s a n a v a i l a b l e a c t i o n
a g a i n s t t h e p a r t y who b r e a k s t h e c o n t r a c t i s no d e f e n s e t o
t h e one who i n d u c e s t h e b r e a c h , s i n c e t h e two are j o i n t
wrongdoers, and e a c h i s l i a b l e f o r t h e l o s s . Prosser,
s u p r a , S129 a t 948. I n t e r m s of l e g a l t h e o r y , i t i s t h e r e -
f o r e p o s s i b l e t o b r i n g s u i t f o r b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t and a l s o
t o b r i n g s u i t f o r t h e t o r t o f i n d u c i n g b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t .
The s p e c i f i c i s s u e o f whether a g e n t s , employees, o f f i -
c e r s and d i r e c t o r s o f a c o r p o r a t i o n may be h e l d i n d i v i d u a l l y
l i a b l e f o r t h e t o r t o f m a l i c i o u s inducement o f b r e a c h of a n
employment c o n t r a c t i s o n e of f i r s t i m p r e s s i o n i n Montana.
P h i l l i p s c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e MEA and t h e i n d i v i d u a l
defendants a r e i n f a c t j o i n t t o r t f e a s o r s . H e argues t h a t
t h e t o r t of m a l i c i o u s inducement of b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t i s
impugnible i n d i v i d u a l l y t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l d e f e n d a n t s who
s o u g h t t o , and t o o k s t e p s t o s e e t h a t t h e c o r p o r a t i o n d i d
b r e a c h t h e employment c o n t r a c t . P h i l l i p s f u r t h e r contends
t h a t i n d i v i d u a l o f f i c e r s c a n n o t , w i t h i m p u n i t y , commit t o r t s
and be a l l o w e d t o h i d e behind t h e c o r p o r a t e v e i l i n o r d e r
t o e s c a p e a c c o u n t a b i l i t y f o r t h o s e t o r t s . The i n d i v i d u a l
d e f e n d a n t s c o n t e n d t h a t o f f i c e r s , d i r e c t o r s and employees
a r e t h e o n l y p e r s o n s who c a n a c t on b e h a l f of a c o r p o r a t i o n ;
and t h a t no d i r e c t o r o r o f f i c e r would e v e r make a c o r p o r a t e
d e c i s i o n i n v o l v i n g t h e performance o f a c o n t r a c t w i t h o u t
f e a r of b e i n g sued f o r t h e t o r t of m a l i c i o u s l y i n d u c i n g t h e
corporation t o breach a corporate o b l i g a t i o n . The i n d i v i -
d u a l defendants f u r t h e r contend t h a t c o r p o r a t i o n s simply
c o u l d n o t f u n c t i o n i f t h e o f f i c e r s , d i r e c t o r s and employees
were t o be exposed t o i n d i v i d u a l l i a b i l i t y on e v e r y o c c a s i o n
when t h e c o r p o r a t i o n f a i l e d t o perform on a c o n t r a c t .
Given t h e i n t e n t i o n t o i n t e r f e r e w i t h a c o n t r a c t ,
l i a b i l i t y u s u a l l y w i l l t u r n upon t h e u l t i m a t e p u r p o s e o r
o b j e c t i v e which t h e d e f e n d a n t i s s e e k i n g t o 4 advance. Gener-
a l l y , an i n t e n t i o n a l i n t e r f e r e n c e with t h e e x i s t i n g contrac-
t u a l r e l a t i o n s of a n o t h e r i s prima f a c i e s u f f i c i e n t f o r
l i a b i l i t y and t h e burden o f p r o v i n g t h a t i t i s " j u s t i f i e d "
r e s t s upon t h e d e f e n d a n t . The d e f e n d a n t may show t h a t t h e
i n t e r f e r e n c e i s p r i v i l e g e d by r e a s o n of t h e i n t e r e s t s f u r -
t h e r e d by h i s c o n d u c t , b u t t h e burden rests upon him t o do
so. The q u e s t i o n of p r i v i l e g e must be c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e
l i g h t o f t h e means a d o p t e d and t h e r e l a t i o n s between t h e
parties. P r o s s e r , s u p r a , 8129 a t 942-43.
To d e t e r m i n e whether i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h c o n t r a c t u a l
relations is justified, p u b l i c p o l i c y c o n s i d e r a t i o n s must be
examined. J u s t i f i c a t i o n o r p r i v i l e g e c o n s t i t u t e s t h e primary
defense t o an a c t i o n f o r i n t e r f e r e n c e . Johnson v . Radde
( 1 9 7 2 ) , 293 Minn. 409, 196 N.W.2d 478; E s t e s , Expanding
Horizons - - - -of T o r t s - - T o r t i o u s
I n The Law I n t e r f e r e n c e , 23
Drake L.Rev. 341, 358 ( 1 9 7 4 ) .
One p u b l i c p o l i c y c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s t h a t t h e o f f i c e r s ,
d i r e c t o r s , employees and a g e n t s of a c o r p o r a t i o n must be
s h i e l d e d from p e r s o n a l l i a b i l i t y f o r a c t s t a k e n on b e h a l f o f
t h e c o r p o r a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g t h e b r e a c h i n g of c o n t r a c t s i n
f u r t h e r a n c e of c o r p o r a t e g o a l s , p o l i c i e s , and b u s i n e s s
interests. T h i s c o r p o r a t e s h i e l d i s needed i n o r d e r t o
allow corporations t o effectively function. A competing
public policy consideration i s t h a t individual corporate
a g e n t s , employees, d i r e c t o r s and o f f i c e r s s h o u l d n o t be
a l l o w e d t o commit t o r t s a t w i l l , and t h e n be a l l o w e d t o h i d e
behind t h e c o r p o r a t e v e i l i n o r d e r t o e s c a p e a c c o u n t a b i l i t y
f o r those t o r t s .
C o r p o r a t e o f f i c e r s o r d i r e c t o r s are p r i v i l e g e d t o
i n t e r f e r e w i t h o r i n d u c e b r e a c h o f t h e c o r p o r a t i o n ' s con-
t r a c t s o r business r e l a t i o n s with o t h e r s a s long a s t h e i r
a c t i o n s a r e i n good f a i t h and f o r t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e
c o r p o r a t i o n . Wilson v. McClenny ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 262 N.C. 121, 136
S.E.2d 569; A l l i s o n v. American A i r l i n e s ( N . D . Okla. 1 9 5 3 ) ,
1 1 2 F.Supp. 37. Where a n o f f i c e r o r d i r e c t o r a c t s a g a i n s t
t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e c o r p o r a t i o n , a c t s f o r h i s own
p e c u n i a r y b e n e f i t , o r w i t h t h e i n t e n t t o harm t h e p l a i n t i f f ,
he i s p e r s o n a l l y l i a b l e . Pennington T r a p Rock Co. v . Pen-
n i n g t o n Q u a r r y Co. (1944), 22 N . J . M i s c . 318, 38 A.2d 869; A.
S. Rampell, I n c . v . H y s t e r Company ( 1 9 5 7 ) , 3 N.Y.2d 369, 165
N.Y.S.2d 475, 1 4 4 N.E.2d 371; W. P. I v e r s o n & Co. v. ~ u n h a m
Manufacturing Co. ( 1 9 5 8 ) , 1 8 111.App.2d 152 N.E.2d 615;
Stell ~anufacturingCorp. v . Century I n d u s t r i e s , I n c . (1961),
1 5 App.Div.2d 87, 221 N.Y.S.2d 528.
I n Wilson v . McClenny, s u p r a , Wilson e n t e r e d i n t o a
p r e i n c o r p o r a t i o n agreement w i t h s e v e r a l i n d i v i d u a l s who
l a t e r became d i r e c t o r s of a c o r p o r a t i o n c a l l e d Gateway ~ i f e
Insurance Company. Under the agreement, Wilson became
president of the corporation. Later, because of a drinking
problem, ~ i l s o nwas ousted as president during a directors'
meeting. Wilson filed an action against the individual
defendants for a breach of the preincorporation agreement
and for tortious interference with his contractual rights
with the corporation.
In Wilson, the court found that the acts of the direc-
tors were found to have been for the benefit of the corpora-
tion, that Wilson offered no evidence to the contrary, and
that there were no individual or separate torts by the
individual defendants distinguishable from their acts on the
corporation's behalf. The court found that Wilson had
failed to state a claim against the individual defendants.
We hold that the corporate veil should not be utilized
as a protective devise by those who employ corporate power
or authority to serve their own ends. Tort liability for
the inducement of breach of contract should be imposed when
a corporate agent, employee, officer or director induces a
breach of contract for private benefit, or because of per-
sonal feelings and purposes relative to a third party. The
privilege of limited liability should be applicable in those
situations where actions are motivated and taken in the
furtherance of corporate purposes, policies and ixterests.
In the instant case, the record discloses that Phillips
wrote a memorandum to the MEA Board of Directors in refer-
ence to terminating the employment of certain employees. A
board member and some of the employees discussed the hilli ips
memorandum, and then some of those individuals wrote a
letter characterizing the function of the staff administra-
tion. They also requested a meeting with the Board of ~ i r e c -
t o r s , e x c l u s i v e of P h i l l i p s . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o n c l u d e d ,
and w e a g r e e , t h a t t h e a c t i o n s t a k e n by t h e i n d i v i d u a l
d e f e n d a n t s were w i t h i n t h e scope of t h e i r employment, de-
s i g n e d w i t h o u t m a l i c e , and i n t h e f u r t h e r a n c e of c o r p o r a t e
interests.
P h i l l i p s h a s f a i l e d t o show t h a t t h e a c t i o n s t a k e n by
t h e i n d i v i d u a l d e f e n d a n t s were n o t t a k e n i n f u r t h e r a n c e of
c o r p o r a t e p u r p o s e s and i n t e r e s t s . Therefore, the p r i v i l e g e
o f l i m i t e d l i a b i l i t y a p p l i e s i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , and t h e
i n d i v i d u a l d e f e n d a n t s a r e s h i e l d e d from p e r s o n a l l i a h i l i t y .
The r e c o r d shows t h e a b s e n c e of any g e n u i n e i s s u e of
m a t e r i a l f a c t ; t h e r e f o r e , t h e o r d e r and judgment o f t h e
D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t i n g t h e i n d i v i d u a l d e f e n d a n t s ' motion
f o r summary judgment on c o u n t two, t h e t o r t c a u s e of a c t i o n
f o r t h e m a l i c i o u s inducement of b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t i s
affirmed.
1
W e concur:
~ _
A d Qg c d
Chief J u s t i c e
4 ~ slt iceQ . A i k d 4
u c s
Mr. J u s t i c e D a n i e l J . Shea d i s s e n t s and w i l l f i l e a w r i t t e n
dissent later.
DISSENT OF MR. JUSTICE DANIEL J. SHEA
No. 14846
LARRY L. PHILLIPS,
Plaintiff and appellant,
THE MONTANA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
a non-profit corporation, et al.,
Defendants and respondents.
-
MAY 6 1980
ELERK OF SUPREME COURT
A STATE _OL MONTANA
Mr. Justice Daniel J. Shea dissenting:
I would reverse the District Court's grant of summary
judgment on the second count and remand for trial on the
factual issue of whether the conduct of the corporate agents
was motivated primarily by personal considerations.
There can be no question that the corporate veil should
not be utilized as a protective device by those who employ
corporate power or authority to serve their own ends. Tort
liability for the inducement of breach of contract should
be imposed when a corporate agent, employee, officer or
director induces a breach of contract for private benefit,
or because of personal feelings and purposes relative to a
third party. The privilege of limited liability should be
applicable only in those situations where actions are motivated
and taken in the furtherance of corporate purposes and policies.
I cannot agree, however, with the majority's determination
that the trial court properly granted the individual
defendant's motion for summary judgment on the tort cause
of action for the malicious inducement of breach of contract.
In a case in which an officer, director, agent or employee's
act is for some ulterior motive of his own, but happens to
be consistent with corporate interests, the question of
whether to impose personal liability should be based upon
the dominant reason motivating the officer, director, agent
or employee. Caverno v. Fellows (1938), 300 Mass. 331, 15
N.E.2d 483; Remy Beverages v. Myer (1945), 56 N.Y.S.2d 828,
l o I3
aff'd. (N.Y.App. 1945), 269 App.Div. W , 59 N.Y.S.2d 371.
If the dominant reason motivating a corporate agent
is the furtherance of corporate interests or policies, the
corporate agent should be shielded from personal liability.
On the other hand, if the dominant reason motivating a
c o r p o r a t e a g e n t i s one f o r p e r s o n a l i n t e r e s t , f e e l i n g s
o r b e n e f i t , t h e n h e s h o u l d be h e l d i n d i v i d u a l l y l i a b l e .
T h i s i s s o even i f t h e p e r s o n a l motive happens t o be con-
s i s t e n t with corporate i n t e r e s t s o r p o l i c i e s . The h e a r t
o f t h e t e s t o f whether i n d i v i d u a l p e r s o n a l l i a b i l i t y a t t a c h e s
i s whether t h e a c t s t a k e n by t h e c o r p o r a t e a g e n t i s i n good
faith. See Smith v. G r e a t Basin G r a i n Co. ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 98 I d a h o
The r a t i o n a l e and p u b l i c p o l i c y c o n s i d e r a t i o n s b e h i n d
t h i s approach i s s e t f o r t h i n Avins, L i a b i l i t y F o r I n d u c i n g
A C o r p o r a t i o n - Breach I t s C o n t r a c t
- To 4 3 Cornell
L.Q. 55, 65:
" O f f i c e r s , d i r e c t o r s , a g e n t s o r employees who
have an i n t e r e s t i n t h e a c t i v i t i e s o f a
corporation o r t h e duty t o advise o r d i r e c t
s u c h a c t i v i t i e s s h o u l d be immune from l i a b i l i t y
f o r inducing t h e corporation t o breach i t s c o n t r a c t ,
assuming t h e i r a c t i o n s are i n p u r s u i t of s u c h
interests o r duties. P u b l i c p o l i c y demands t h a t
s o l o n g as t h e s e p a r t i e s a c t i n good f a i t h and f o r
t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e i r c o r p o r a t i o n , t h e y
s h o u l d n o t be d e t e r r e d by t h e d a n g e r of p e r s o n a l
l i a b i l i t y . Any o t h e r p o s i t i o n would make t h e
l i m i t e d l i a b i l i t y o f a c o r p o r a t i o n somewhat
meaningless.
"On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e c o r p o r a t e v e i l s h o u l d
n o t s t a n d as a means of p r o t e c t i o n f o r t h o s e who
choose t o employ c o r p o r a t e power t o s e r v e t h e i r
own e n d s . T o r t l i a b i l i t y s h o u l d be s w i f t l y
imposed whenever a n o f f i c e r , d i r e c t o r , employee
o r stockholder induces a breach of c o n t r a c t f o r
p r i v a t e b e n e f i t o r t o s a t i s f y personal feelings
against a t h i r d party. The l i m i t e d l i a b i l i t y of
t h e corporate c h a r t e r w a s granted f o r corporate
purposes. Where s u c h p u r p o s e s no l o n g e r e x i s t ,
t h e r e s h o u l d be no l i m i t e d l i a b i l i t y . "
The t r i a l c o u r t concluded, and t h e m a j o r i t y a g r e e d ,
t h a t t h e a c t i o n s t a k e n by t h e i n d i v i d u a l d e f e n d a n t s w e r e
w i t h i n t h e s c o p e o f t h e i r employment, d e s i g n e d w i t h o u t
m a l i c e , and i n t h e f u r t h e r a n c e o f MEA c o r p o r a t e i n t e r e s t s .
The i s s u e , however, a s t o whether t h e i n d i v i d u a l d e f e n d a n t s
a c t e d i n good f a i t h o r bad f a i t h i s a f a c t u a l q u e s t i o n
which p r e c l u d e s summary judgment. See N o t t v. Booke (19791,
Mont . , 598 P.2d 1137, 36 St.Rep. 1542.
The i n d i v i d u a l c o n d u c t of t h e d e f e n d a n t s s h o u l d be
examined t o d e t e r m i n e t h e dominant r e a s o n which e x i s t e d
i n m o t i v a t i n g t h e i r c o n d u c t and a c t i o n s . The p l a i n t i f f
a l l e g e s i n e s s e n c e t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l d e f e n d a n t s named
i n t h e second amended c o m p l a i n t , a c t i n g f o r p e r s o n a l
r e a s o n s , m a l i c i o u s l y induced t h e MEA c o r p o r a t i o n t o b r e a c h
i t s employment c o n t r a c t w i t h t h e p l a i n t i f f . A genuine
i s s u e of f a c t d o e s e x i s t i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l
d e f e n d a n t s ' a c t i o n s and m o t i v e s r e l a t i n g t o u l t i m a t e l y
inducing corporate a c t i o n terminating t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s
employment c o n t r a c t .
I t i s c l e a r t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e o r d e r and judgment of
the t r i a l c o u r t i n g r a n t i n g t h e i n d i v i d u a l d e f e n d a n t s '
motion f o r summary judgment on t h e second c o u n t , t h e t o r t
c a u s e o f a c t i o n f o r m a l i c i o u s inducement of b r e a c h o f
c o n t r a c t , s h o u l d be r e v e r s e d .