Issue: What proof is necessary to sustain an action for tortious interference with a contract in Kentucky?
Area of Law:
Business Organizations & Contracts, Personal Injury & Negligence
Tortious interference with a contract; Essential proof; Malice or other wrongful conduct by the actor
892 S.W. 2d 617
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766 (1965)
Regarding the essential proof necessary to sustain an action for tortious interference with a contract, the Kentucky Supreme Court has held that the party seeking recovery must prove malice or other wrongful conduct by the actor. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n. ex rel. Bellarmine College v. Hornung, 754 S.W.2d 855, 859 (Ky. 1988). Further explaining this requirement, the Kentucky Court of Appeals, in the case of Eastern Kentucky Resources v. Arnett, 892 S.W. 2d 617, 619 (Ky. Ct. App. 1995), quoted from the Restatement (Second) of Torts§ 766 (1965), wherein it is stated that “[w]hat is meant is not malice in the sense of ill will but merely “intentional interference without justification.'”
Subscribe to Litigation Pathfinder
To get the full-text of this Legal Memorandum ... and more!
(Month-to-month and annual subscriptions available)