CURTIS LACKLAND, CORPORATE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS, LLC VS. BROWN & BROWN METRO, INC.(L-3490-13, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-0943-15T2
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Jun 29, 2017Background
- Asbury Park Board of Education sought insurance broker via RFP in 2011; Brown & Brown Metro (defendant) had been broker since 1999; Corporate Employee Benefits, LLC (CEB) and Curtis Lackland (plaintiffs) also bid.
- On June 29, 2011 the Board voted to appoint CEB as broker; a State-appointed monitor (Richens) attended and on June 30, 2011 overrode the Board, directing Brown & Brown be broker for certain coverages and CEB for others.
- Richens’ June 30 memorandum conditioned CEB serving as SAIF (workers’ compensation) broker on CEB’s approval by SAIF; CEB ultimately was not approved by SAIF.
- On July 1, 2011 Brown & Brown sent Richens a letter criticizing CEB’s experience and qualifications; plaintiffs later sued for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, arguing the July 1 letter falsely disparaged CEB and caused loss of business.
- At summary judgment the trial court found the monitor had made his decision on June 30 and had not seen Brown & Brown’s July 1 letter; plaintiffs offered no admissible evidence that Brown & Brown communicated with or influenced the monitor before his decision.
- The court granted summary judgment for Brown & Brown; the Appellate Division affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brown & Brown tortiously interfered with CEB's prospective economic advantage with the Board | Brown & Brown’s July 1 letter falsely disparaged CEB and induced the monitor/Board to deny CEB full broker role | Monitor made his decision on June 30 before receiving the July 1 letter; no evidence Brown & Brown influenced the monitor; SAIF’s approval was independent | No interference — letter was not shown to have affected the monitor’s decision; summary judgment for defendant affirmed |
| Whether circumstantial evidence created a triable issue about communications between Brown & Brown and the monitor | Plaintiffs argued circumstantial inference that Brown & Brown or its VP communicated with or influenced the monitor to impose SAIF approval condition | No admissible evidence or deposition of the monitor or SAIF supports the inference; defendant submitted affidavit denying inducement; plaintiffs failed to submit opposing proof | No sufficient circumstantial evidence; speculation is insufficient to defeat summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Devereux Found., 209 N.J. 269 (2012) (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (1995) (summary judgment standard explained)
- Agurto v. Guhr, 381 N.J. Super. 519 (App. Div. 2005) (motion for summary judgment standards at appellate level)
- MacDougall v. Weichert, 144 N.J. 380 (1996) (elements of tortious interference with prospective economic advantage)
- Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 116 N.J. 739 (1989) (articulating required elements for tortious interference)