Walnut Street Associates, Inc. v. Brokerage Concepts, Inc.
20 A.3d 468
| Pa. | 2011Background
- WSA was Procacci's broker of record for health insurance since the 1980s and received commissions from Procacci based on premiums.
- In 2005 Procacci moved its plan to a different administrator; BCI's Macrone wrote a letter to Procacci describing WSA's compensation.
- Macrone's truthful statements about WSA's compensation led Procacci to terminate its contract with WSA.
- WSA sued BCI and Macrone for tortious interference; the jury found in favor of WSA after being instructed under Restatement §767.
- Superior Court reversed, applying Restatement §772(a) to hold truthful information cannot support tortious interference; this Court granted review to consider adoption of §772(a).
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that Restatement §772(a) applies and that truthful disclosures are not actionable as improper interference; affirmed the Superior Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §772(a) applies to bar recovery when statements are truthful | WSA argues truth is not a defense under traditional tort rules | BCI argues §772(a) applies and truthfulness defeats liability, per Restatement | §772(a) applies; truthful statements cannot support tortious interference |
| Whether adoption of §772(a) alters existing law retroactively | WSA asserts retroactive change harms settled reliance | BCI contends adoption clarifies law and is not impermissibly retroactive | Adoption is proper and retroactivity is permissible in this context |
| Whether the Superior Court had authority to apply §772(a) | WSA claims Superior Court lacked authority to adopt a new rule | BCI contends Superior Court properly anticipated this Court's approach and followed precedent | Superior Court correctly applied §772(a) |
| What governing framework applies to tortious interference when truthful information is conveyed | WSA relies on §767 factors to show improper interference | BCI relies on §772(a) to exempt truthful disclosures from liability | Section 772(a) controls; truthful information not actionable |
| Affirmation of verdict | WSA seeks reversal or reentry of verdict due to misapplied law | BCI argues verdict would be invalid under §772(a) but the outcome should be sustained | Superior Court decision affirmed; BCI not liable |
Key Cases Cited
- Adler Barish Daniels, Levin & Creskoff v. Epstein, 393 A.2d 1175 (Pa. 1978) (recognized Section 767 factors; foreshadowed Section 772 interplay)
- Menefee v. Columbia Broadcasting System Inc., 329 A.2d 216 (Pa. 1974) (endorsed honest advice privilege (772(b)))
- Yaindl v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 422 A.2d 611 (Pa. Super. 1980) (noted truthfulness; dicta that truth may defeat liability)
- Geyer v. Steinbronn, 351 Pa. Super. 536 (Pa. Super. 1986) (Section 772 considered but not applied; factual belief of truth mattered)
- Collincini v. Honeywell, Inc., 411 Pa. Super. 166 (Pa. Super. 1991) (stated truth is not a defense (dicta))
- Kachmar v. SunGard Data Systems, Inc., 109 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 1997) (discussed §767 factors; Pennsylvania has not adopted §772)
- In re Estate of Stephano, 602 Pa. 527 (Pa. 2009) (illustrates lower courts' treatment of controlling precedent)