Tortious Interference
A tort claim arising from a third party's wrongful interference with the plaintiff's contractual or prospective business relationships. Texas recognizes two distinct claims: tortious interference with existing contracts (ACS Investors v. McLaughlin, 943 S.W.2d 426 (Tex. 1997)) and tortious interference with prospective business relations (Wal-Mart Stores v. Sturges, 52 S.W.3d 711 (Tex. 2001)). Each has specific elements; the prospective-relations tort is narrower, requiring independent tortious or unlawful conduct.
Tortious interference is a tort claim arising from a third party's wrongful interference with the plaintiff's contractual or prospective business relationships. Texas recognizes two distinct tortious-interference claims: interference with existing contracts (sometimes called "interference with contract") and interference with prospective business relations. The two claims have different elements and require different proof; the prospective-relations claim is substantially narrower, requiring independently tortious or unlawful conduct rather than mere interference.
Tortious interference with existing contract, elements
ACS Investors v. McLaughlin articulates the four elements: (1) existence of a valid contract subject to interference; (2) willful and intentional act of interference with the contract; (3) proximate cause, the act caused the breach or non-performance; (4) actual damages. The interference must be intentional, the defendant must have knowledge of the contract and act with the intent to interfere. Negligent interference is not actionable; only intentional, willful conduct supports the claim.
The justification defense
Tortious interference with existing contract is subject to a justification defense. The defendant may justify interference by showing that it was acting in furtherance of a legitimate interest of greater or equal weight to the plaintiff's contractual interest. Prudential Ins. Co. v. Financial Review Servs. (Tex. 2000) is the controlling case. Common justifications: (1) colorable legal right, defendant had a legal right to take the action even if it caused interference; (2) protection of own contractual interest, defendant interfered to protect a competing contract; (3) fiduciary duty, defendant interfered as part of fiduciary obligations; (4) professional advice, attorney or financial advisor advised the breaching party. Justification is an affirmative defense; the defendant bears the burden.
Tortious interference with prospective business relations, elements
Wal-Mart Stores v. Sturges (Tex. 2001) substantially raised the bar for prospective-relations claims. The foundational case requires: (1) reasonable probability that the plaintiff would have entered into a business relationship with a third party; (2) independently tortious or unlawful conduct by the defendant that prevented the relationship from occurring; (3) proximate cause; (4) actual damages. The "independently tortious or unlawful" element is the critical distinction from existing-contract interference: mere competitive interference with a prospective relationship, fair competition, is not actionable. The plaintiff must show conduct that is independently tortious (defamation, fraud, threats, intimidation) or unlawful (criminal, regulatory violation).
The Sturges framework, competition vs. tortious interference
Sturges rejected the older Restatement framework that asked whether interference was "improper", a vague standard that potentially captured ordinary competition. The Texas Supreme Court reasoned that aggressive competition for prospective business relationships should not be tortious; only conduct that is independently wrongful (a separate tort or unlawful act) is actionable. This makes Texas's prospective-relations tort substantially narrower than equivalent claims in some other states. Common types of conduct that satisfy Sturges: (1) fraudulent misrepresentations to the prospective customer; (2) defamation of the plaintiff; (3) intimidation or threats; (4) antitrust violations; (5) regulatory violations; (6) misappropriation of trade secrets.
Common factual patterns
Recurring tortious-interference patterns in Texas commercial litigation: (1) employee raiding, competitor recruits employees subject to non-compete agreements; (2) customer poaching, competitor targets customers with existing contracts; (3) supply chain disruption, defendant interferes with key supplier or distributor relationships; (4) M&A interference, third party intervenes to disrupt pending acquisition; (5) regulatory complaints, competitor files baseless regulatory complaints to disrupt business operations; (6) defamation, false statements about plaintiff to plaintiff's customers or partners.
Damages
Tortious interference damages typically include: (1) lost profits from the interfered-with relationship; (2) consequential damages from the interference; (3) punitive damages for malicious or grossly negligent conduct (subject to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ch. 41 caps); (4) disgorgement of defendant's gains in some circumstances. Damages must be proven with reasonable certainty; speculative damages do not support recovery. Lost-profits expert testimony is typically required for any meaningful damages claim.
Statute of limitations
Both tortious-interference variants are subject to the 2-year limitations period under § 16.003. Accrual generally occurs at the date of breach (existing contract) or at the date prospective relationship was prevented from occurring (prospective relations). The discovery rule does not generally apply unless the interference itself is concealed.
For Texas commercial plaintiffs, tortious interference is a powerful tool against competitor misconduct, but the prospective-relations claim's independently-tortious requirement is a significant barrier. Best practice: (1) for existing-contract claims, identify the specific contract, the breach, and the defendant's knowledge; (2) for prospective-relations claims, identify the independently tortious or unlawful conduct first, the claim cannot survive without it; (3) document the reasonable probability of the prospective relationship through past dealing, ongoing negotiations, or other evidence; (4) prepare lost-profits evidence with expert support; (5) plead and preserve punitive-damages elements. For defendants: (1) the justification defense is powerful for existing-contract claims, develop the protected interest framework; (2) for prospective-relations claims, attack the independently-tortious element first; (3) competition defenses are strong for prospective-relations claims under Sturges. Tortious interference cases are heavily fact-driven; thorough factual development is essential.