Mannex Corp. v. Bruns
250 Or. App. 50
| Or. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Plaintiff sued for intentional interference with economic relations (IIER) and defamation; summary judgment sought by defendant.
- Trial court held no genuine issue defendant was a third party to plaintiff's PCC contract and defamation lacked causation, privilege issues remained.
- Plaintiff supplied fabrication services to PCC Structural, with defendant as PCC purchasing manager who managed vendors and policies.
- In 2002 defendant prepared concerns about plaintiff’s overbilling, access, and misuse of PCC resources, influencing a policy restricting work to SSBO facility.
- In 2005 defendant told a new buyer that plaintiff was a crook and sought to find dirt on plaintiff; 2008 actions involved SSBO policy circumvention.
- 2008 termination of plaintiff as PCC vendor followed internal reports; plaintiff claimed defamation and IIER; court granted summary judgment for defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is defendant a third party to the PCC contract? | defendant acted as a third party to interfere. | acted within the scope of employment and to benefit PCC. | No; defendant not a third party. |
| Did defendant's statements cause damages in defamation claim? | statements caused harm to plaintiff's business. | causation disputed; damages rely on other factors. | Imminent triable issue for factfinder exists (causation questioned). |
| Were defendant's defamatory statements privileged? | privilege defense not applicable. | statements were qualifiedly privileged to protect employer interests. | Yes; statements were qualifiedly privileged. |
| Is the defamation claim time-barred? | statute of limitations issues unresolved. | defenses potentially applicable; alternative grounds exist. | Court adopts alternative bases; privilege supports summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- McGanty v. Staudenraus, 321 Or 532 (1995) (six elements of IIER; protects contracting parties from outside interference)
- Sims v. Software Solutions Unlimited, Inc., 148 Or App 358 (1997) (scope-of-employment test for third-party interference; motive matters)
- Boers v. Payline Systems, Inc., 141 Or App 238 (1996) (agent acting within scope cannot be third party unless sole personal motive)
- Wallulis v. Dymowski, 323 Or 337 (1996) (defamation privilege; effectiveness depends on motive and abuse)
- Wattenburg v. United Medical Lab., 269 Or 377 (1974) (defamation privileged communication framework; mutual concern and purpose)