297 So.3d 646
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2020Background
- Weisman was a long‑time employee (Director of Business Relations) of a wholesale wine-and-spirits distributor; she refused a reassignment and was later terminated amid federal criminal charges and other misconduct findings.
- The distributor entered a Florida Consent Order requiring compliance with tied‑house laws and restrictions on promotional/third‑party marketing activity.
- After Weisman began consulting for MMS (a third‑party marketing company), the distributor discovered she used its FedEx account without authorization, posed as a licensed beverage buyer, procured prohibited marketing funds/equipment, and diverted retailer business to MMS.
- The distributor sent a memorandum to retailers stating it would not do business with Weisman or any company she consulted for.
- Weisman and MMS sued for tortious interference and conspiracy to tortiously interfere; the trial court granted summary judgment for the distributor and denied leave to amend.
- The Fourth District affirmed, finding the distributor protected by a privilege to safeguard its financial/contractual interests and that no actionable underlying tort existed for conspiracy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether distributor’s memorandum constituted tortious interference | Weisman: memorandum unlawfully interfered, used monopoly power, bad faith and improper means | Distributor: acted to protect contractual/financial interests consistent with Consent Order; did not use improper means | Held: Distributor protected by the protection/competition privileges; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment | Plaintiffs: disputed facts exist about scope/effects of memorandum and bad faith | Distributor: material facts are undisputed; privilege established as a matter of law | Held: Plaintiffs failed to identify disputed material facts; argument waived; no triable issue |
| Whether plaintiffs’ alleged damages save the tort claim | Plaintiffs: they suffered economic harm from lost clients | Distributor: damages irrelevant if interference was privileged | Held: Because privilege applied (no improper means), damages do not create an actionable claim |
| Whether conspiracy to tortiously interfere is actionable | Plaintiffs: complaint pleads conspiracy; intracorporate doctrine inapplicable to external actors | Distributor: no underlying actionable tort; intracorporate doctrine bars claim | Held: Conspiracy requires an underlying actionable tort—none here; intracorporate‑conspiracy doctrine also bars the claim; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bortell v. White Mountains Ins. Grp., Ltd., 2 So.3d 1041 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (elements of tortious interference)
- Jay v. Mobley, 783 So.2d 297 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (recognizing competition privilege for nonexclusive rights)
- Horizons Rehab., Inc. v. Health Care & Ret. Corp., 810 So.2d 958 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (insisting on existing legal rights is not improper means)
- Salit v. Ruden, McClosky, Smith Schuster & Russell, P.A., 742 So.2d 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (protection privilege and burden shifting)
- Ethyl Corp. v. Balter, 386 So.2d 1220 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (protecting financial interests nonactionable absent improper means)
- Walters v. Blankenship, 931 So.2d 137 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (an actionable conspiracy requires an actionable underlying tort)
- Cedar Hills Props. Corp. v. E. Fed. Corp., 575 So.2d 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (intracorporate conspiracy doctrine)
- Hoon v. Pate Const. Co., 607 So.2d 423 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (corporate agents’ acts attributed to corporation, negating multiplicity for conspiracy)
- Mancinelli v. Davis, 217 So.3d 1034 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (personal‑stake exception to intracorporate doctrine requires more than incidental benefit)