Essex Capital Group, INC v. Warnell, Jr., 8:24-cv-00529

Essex Capital Group, Inc. (“Essex”), a financial advisory firm, entered into an agreement to arrange financing for a life insurance policy for Brooks Warnell, working through Travis McCurry (advisor), the Warnell family, and Wealth Benefits Group (WBG).
Essex was to be the exclusive advisor and receive a fee at closing (2.5%—later negotiated down—of the total capital committed) if the deal closed, which it did ($30 million loan via AgSouth Farm Credit).
After the closing, Essex did not receive its fee and alleged that it was excluded from the process and removed from the closing statement, despite performing its obligations and being assured it would be paid.
Essex sued multiple parties: Brooks Warnell (for breach of contract), and others (including Ken Warnell, WBG, and McCurry) for civil conspiracy, tortious interference, negligent misrepresentation, and negligence.
Defendants (WBG, McCurry, Ken Warnell, and separately Brooks Warnell) moved to dismiss the tortious interference and civil conspiracy claims (Counts II and III) on the grounds they cannot, as interested parties or agents, tortiously interfere with their own contract or conspire to do so.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can interested parties/agents be liable for tortious interference with contract?	Ken Warnell, McCurry, and WBG interfered by removing Essex from closing and fee.	They are not "strangers" to the relationship; agents/parties can't tortiously interfere.	No liability; claim dismissed as a matter of law.
Can a party or its agents conspire to tortiously interfere with their own contract?	Parties acted in concert to prevent Essex from collecting the fee.	Parties cannot conspire to interfere with their own contract; must be third parties.	No liability; conspiracy claim dismissed.
Does the exception for malice apply to allow agent/party liability?	Not directly argued as applicable.	No facts alleged showing sole malice or bad motive.	No exception; no liability under malice exception.
Can a civil conspiracy claim proceed where no valid tort claim exists?	Civil conspiracy alleged to further tortious interference.	No underlying tort exists; thus, no conspiracy claim possible.	No; conspiracy must have an actionable underlying tort.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (standard for plausibility pleading under Rule 8)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard for sufficiency of claims)
Salit v. Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A., 742 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (tortious interference requires defendant to be a third party/stranger)
Palm Beach Cnty. Health Care Dist. v. Pro. Med. Educ., Inc., 13 So. 3d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (supervisory/financial interests exclude party from being a stranger)
Ernie Haire Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 260 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2001) (malice exception to agent/party tortious interference rule)
M & M Realty Partners at Hagen Ranch, LLC v. Mazzoni, 982 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2020) (agents are not liable for tortious interference when acting for principal)
United Techs. Corp. v. Mazer, 556 F.3d 1260 (civil conspiracy must be based on an underlying tort)