PJC Business

T ORTIOUS I NTERFERENCE

PJC 106.1

PJC 106.1

Question and Instruction—Intentional Interference with Existing Contract

QUESTION ______ Did Don Davis intentionally interfere with [ identify contract ]?

Interference is intentional if committed with the desire to interfere with the contract or with the belief that interference is substantially certain to result. Answer “Yes” or “No.” Answer: _______________ COMMENT When to use. An existing contract is a necessary element of a claim of intentional interference with contract. PJC 106.1 should be used in cases involving claims for intentional interference with a contract if the existence of the contract is not in dispute. If the existence of the contract is in dispute, additional jury questions or instructions may be required. See chapter 101 of this volume. Source of question and instruction. The four elements of intentional interfer ence with a contract are (1) the existence of a contract subject to interference, (2) an act of interference that was willful and intentional, (3) the act was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s damage, and (4) actual damage or loss occurred. Community Health Sys tems Professional Services Corp. v. Hansen , 525 S.W.3d 671, 689 (Tex. 2017). The third and fourth elements are submitted together with the question and instructions on damages in PJC 115.22. Broad-form submission. PJC 106.1 is a broad-form question designed to be accompanied by one or more appropriate instructions. Tex. R. Civ. P. 277 requires that “the court shall, whenever feasible, submit the cause upon broad-form questions.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 277; see Thota v. Young , 366 S.W.3d 678, 689 (Tex. 2012) (rule 277’s use of “whenever feasible” mandates broad-form submission in any or every instance in which it is capable of being accomplished). For further discussion, see PJC 116.2 regarding broad-form issues and the Casteel doctrine. Intent required. Interference is tortious only if it is intentional, and the intent required is the intent to interfere, not just an intent to do the particular acts done. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. John Carlo Texas, Inc. , 843 S.W.2d 470, 472 (Tex. 1992). Nature of interference. Interference can include conduct that prevents perfor mance of a contract or makes performance of a contract impossible, more burden-

287