Effs v. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, Inc.
197 So. 3d 1243
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Effs sued Sony Pictures alleging he owned a 25% interest in the film Shottas based on an oral agreement with co-defendants, and that Sony tortiously interfered with his business relationship by licensing distribution rights.
- Sony Pictures obtained exclusive distribution rights in May 2005; the licensing agreement required the first payment on October 30, 2005, and Sony made additional distribution payments thereafter.
- Effs’ counsel notified Sony of Effs’ claimed involvement in May 2007.
- Effs filed suit on March 6, 2012 asserting tortious interference with a business relationship (four-year statute of limitations under Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(o)).
- Sony moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was time-barred; the trial court held the cause accrued on October 30, 2005 (or at latest May 2007 under delayed discovery) and rejected Effs’ continuing-tort theory, entering final judgment for Sony.
- The appellate court affirmed, concluding subsequent distribution payments were continuing harmful effects of a completed act, not repeated wrongful conduct that would toll accrual.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the "continuing tort" doctrine delays accrual of a tortious-interference claim | Effs: Sony's ongoing distribution payments constituted continual tortious acts, so the cause of action did not accrue until the wrongful conduct ceased | Sony: The tort was completed when interference occurred (inducing the breach); later payments were damages/effects and do not extend accrual | Court: Continuing-tort doctrine does not apply; later payments were harmful effects of a completed act, so the claim was time-barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Laney v. Am. Equity Inv. Life Ins. Co., 243 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (M.D. Fla. 2013) (describing continuing-tort accrual when tortious conduct is ongoing)
- Suarez v. City of Tampa, 987 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (continuing tort requires continual tortious acts, not ongoing effects of a completed act)
- Horvath v. Delida, 540 N.W.2d 760 (Mich. 1995) (defining continuing tort as continual wrongful acts rather than continual harmful effects)
- Black Diamond Props., Inc. v. Haines, 69 So. 3d 1090 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (discussing continuing tort concept in Florida context)
- D'Arcy & Assocs., Inc. v. K.P.M.G. Peat Marwick, L.L.P., 129 S.W.3d 25 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004) (tortious interference is complete when the defendant induced or caused the breach; subsequent damages do not make the wrong continuing)
- Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc. v. Cotton, 463 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1985) (elements of tortious interference with a business relationship)