Edward Springer v. Ausbern Construction Co., Inc.
2014-CT-01190-SCT
| Miss. | Oct 19, 2017Background
- Ausbern won a county road-construction contract; the county engineer Springer prepared underestimated unit quantities, producing a large overage in materials.
- Ausbern sued the County for breach and later added Springer in his individual capacity for tortious interference with the contract, alleging Springer induced the County to breach with malice.
- A jury awarded Ausbern damages against the County and $182,500 against Springer; the County judgment went unappealed.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals reversed and rendered for Springer because Ausbern failed to prove malice, an essential element of tortious interference; a panel majority alternatively held Ausbern had failed to give presuit notice under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA).
- The Mississippi Supreme Court granted certiorari, affirmed the Court of Appeals’ malice-based reversal, and clarified that tortious-interference claims requiring proof of malice are not subject to the MTCA presuit notice requirement when brought against an employee in his individual capacity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether malice was proved for tortious interference with contract | Ausbern: Springer acted intentionally and with malice to induce breach | Springer: His actions were within his duties to the County and lacked malice | Held: No evidence of malice; judgment against Springer reversed and rendered for Springer |
| Whether tortious-interference claims against individual government employees trigger MTCA presuit notice | Ausbern: Suing Springer individually for conduct outside scope avoids MTCA notice | Ausbern argued individual-capacity claim for malice-based tort is outside MTCA; thus no notice required | Held: Claims requiring malice (intentional torts) are outside MTCA waiver and not subject to presuit notice when brought against employees individually |
| Whether Whiting implicitly overruled Zumwalt and McGehee | Ausbern: Whiting governs and subjects such claims to MTCA procedures | Springer/Ct. of Appeals (majority): Treated Whiting as controlling, applying MTCA notice | Held: Whiting did not overrule Zumwalt/McGehee; court overrules Whiting to the extent it held tortious interference is subject to MTCA presuit notice |
| Whether trial court erred by denying Springer’s motion to dismiss for lack of presuit notice | Springer: Lack of MTCA presuit notice required dismissal | Ausbern: No presuit notice required for individual-capacity malice-based claim | Held: Denial of dismissal was proper because claim against Springer was outside MTCA presuit notice requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Zumwalt v. Jones County Bd. of Supervisors, 19 So. 3d 672 (Miss. 2009) (tortious interference requires malice and therefore falls outside MTCA waiver; individual-capacity suits proceed without MTCA presuit notice)
- Whiting v. Univ. of S. Miss., 62 So. 3d 907 (Miss. 2011) (discussed tortious breach/interference in context of exhaustion and administrative remedies under MTCA)
- McGehee v. DePoyster, 708 So. 2d 77 (Miss. 1998) (employee sued individually for acts outside scope of employment not subject to MTCA notice)
- Par Industries, Inc. v. Target Container Co., 708 So. 2d 44 (Miss. 1998) (malice is an essential element of tortious interference)
- Biglane v. Under the Hill Corp., 949 So. 2d 9 (Miss. 2007) (discusses elements of tortious interference including malice)
- City of Jackson v. Estate of Stewart ex rel. Womack, 908 So. 2d 703 (Miss. 2005) (MTCA covers tortious breaches of contract and breaches of implied terms/warranties)
- Johnson v. City of Shelby, Miss., 743 F.3d 59 (5th Cir. 2013) (applied Whiting and held malicious-interference claims barred for failure to comply with MTCA notice requirement)