From Excel v. Liberty Mutual, COA, NPO, 5/6/2011
Finally, Exel maintains that the trial court erred by granting Liberty’s motion for summary judgment regarding its claim of tortious interference with a contract. We disagree.
To prevail on a claim of tortious interference, one must show improper interference with a contractual relationship. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n By and Through Bellarmine Coll. v. Hornung, 754 S.W.2d 855, 858 (Ky. 1988). In determining whether an actor’s conduct is improper, courts consider the following:
(a) the nature of the actor’s conduct, (b) the actor’s motive,
(c) the interests of the other with which the actor’s conduct interferes,
(d) the interest sought to be advanced by the actor,
(e) the social interests in protecting the freedom of action of the actor and the contractual interests of the other,
(f) the proximity or remoteness of the actor’s conduct to the interference and
(g) the relations between the parties. E. Kentucky Res. v. Arnett, 892 S.W.2d 617, 619 (Ky.App. 1995) (citing
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 767 (1979)).
