66 So. 3d 321
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Pensacola Beach Pier, Inc. and John Soule (Appellants) sought the concession contract on a Santa Rosa Island pier after initially finishing first in the SRIA RFP process.
- SRIA halted negotiations due to anticipated litigation challenges to the bidding process and reopened the RFP, ultimately awarding the contract to Appellees.
- Appellants filed suit; circuit court ordered reinstatement of negotiations which this court later reversed on appeal in Santa Rosa Island Authority v. Pensacola Beach Pier, Inc., 834 So.2d 261 (Fla.1st DCA 2002).
- Appellants asserted three counts: tortious interference with a business relationship, defamation, and civil conspiracy; the trial court granted final summary judgment on all five counts, with the appeal focusing on these three.
- Tortious interference claim argued Appellees’ actions to restart the RFP process interfered with a business relationship; no contractual relationship existed at the time to interfere with, according to the trial court.
- Defamation claim centered on letters and attachments sent by King and Pinzone questioning the bid process and alleging improper conduct; trial court found the letters did not defame Appellants and were privilege to challenge governmental action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tortious interference preservation | PBPI argued interference with a business relationship existed and was improperly judged. | King/Pinzone defended the summary judgment on preservation grounds and lack of contractual relationship. | Not preserved; affirmed on preservation grounds. |
| Defamation preservation and scope | Letters contained defamatory allegations before and during the bid process. | Letters questioned the bid process and were privileged; attachments not addressed; no defamation per se shown. | Not preserved; no merit given lack of preservation and misinterpretation. |
| Civil conspiracy | Appellants alleged concerted unlawful actions by Appellees to undermine their bid. | Defendants deny conspiracy linkage and sufficiency of evidence. | Affirmed as to civil conspiracy claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santa Rosa Island Authority v. Pensacola Beach Pier, Inc., 834 So.2d 261 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (reversed reinstatement order; context for no remedy absent illegality/fraud)
- D.T. v. Fla. Dep't of Children & Families, 54 So.3d 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (preservation and post-judgment relief requirements)
- Holland v. Cheney Bros., Inc., 22 So.3d 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (preservation principles for appellate review)
- Lake Sarasota, Inc. v. Pan. Am. Sur. Co., 140 So.2d 139 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962) (preservation and appellate duty to correct order errors)
- Jellison v. Dixie S. Indus., Inc., 857 So.2d 365 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (requirement to raise errors to preserve for appeal)
- Sunset Harbour Condo. Ass'n v. Robbins, 914 So.2d 925 (Fla. 2005) (preservation of issues; due process in appellate review)
- Tillman v. State, 471 So.2d 32 (Fla.1985) (preservation and standards for reviewing judgments)
- Williamson v. Cowan, 49 So.3d 867 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (defamatory meaning and triable issue principles)