Slater Numismatics, LLC v. Driving Force, LLC
2012 COA 103
Colo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Plaintiff Slater Numismaties, LLC had a contract with Cable via ICG for coin grading and referrals.
- ICG and Cable operated through a referral arrangement where Plaintiff earned 25% of net grading fees from Cable’s purchases.
- Taylor and Williams, ICG executives, later formed ANACS and hired away most ICG staff, including key personnel.
- ANACS eventually offered services to Cable at lower cost, without paying Plaintiff the referral fee, using insider knowledge.
- Cable transferred its modern coin grading business from ICG to ANACS, giving ANACS a competitive advantage.
- Trial court granted ANACS summary judgment on intentional interference and unjust enrichment; appeal contested standing and damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is a triable issue on intentional interference | Numismatists: ANACS interfered improperly with ICG’s performance. | ANACS contends Krystkowiak requires breach/impossibility to be shown. | Triable issue exists; summary judgment wrong. |
| Proper legal standard for intentional interference under Restatement § 766 | Restatement § 766 applies; interference short of breach/impossibility can be actionable. | Krystkowiak governs; improper to impose liability without breach/impossibility. | Restatement § 766 framework adopted; not limited to breach/impossibility. |
| Whether ANACS’s conduct was improper and intentional | Taylor/Williams improperly used confidential info to induce loss to Plaintiff. | Competition and nonbreach conduct could be permissible. | Evidence supports improper, intentional interference; triable questions remain. |
| Whether unjust enrichment was properly decided at summary judgment | ANACS benefited at Plaintiff’s expense; unjust enrichment present. | No contract means no quasi-contract claim under prior standard. | Summary judgment on unjust enrichment reversed; Zeus. |
Key Cases Cited
- Trimble v. City & County of Denver, 697 P.2d 716 (Colo. 1985) (defining tort of intentional interference (Restatement § 766))
- Memorial Gardens, Inc. v. Olympian Sales & Management Consultants, Inc., 690 P.2d 207 (Colo. 1984) ( Restatement § 766 and improper interference factors)
- Westfield Development Co. v. Rifle Inv. Associates, 786 P.2d 1112 (Colo. 1990) (adopting Restatement § 766A framework)
- Colorado National Bank v. Friedman, 846 P.2d 159 (Colo. 1993) (defining when third party’s conduct interferes with contract)
- Krystkowiak v. W.O. Brisben Cos., 90 P.3d 859 (Colo. 2004) (clarifies scope of interference elements and improper conduct)