PJC Business

PJC 115.22

D AMAGES

tortious interference with prospective contractual relations (see PJC 106.3). PJC 115.22 is used to establish the proximate cause and actual damages elements of inten tional interference with an existing contract as set forth in the Comment to PJC 106.1 and of wrongful interference with prospective contractual relations as stated in PJC 106.3. Instruction required. PJC 115.22 should not be submitted without an instruction on the appropriate measures of damages. See Jackson v. Fontaine’s Clinics, Inc. , 499 S.W.2d 87, 90 (Tex. 1973). See PJC 115.4 and 115.5 for sample instructions. Damages. PJC 115.22 submits actual damages in interference cases. For ques tions submitting exemplary damages, see PJC 115.37 and 115.38 and the Comments accompanying those questions. The basic measure of damages is the same as for breach of contract. American National Petroleum Co. v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. , 798 S.W.2d 274, 278 (Tex. 1990) (“The basic measure of actual damages for tortious interference with contract is the same as the measure of damages for breach of the contract interfered with, to put the plaintiff in the same economic position he would have been in had the contract [or relationship] interfered with been actually performed.”). Thus, damages for interference with an existing contract or prospective contractual relations include the pecuniary loss of the contract’s benefit and consequential losses. American National Petroleum Co. , 798 S.W.2d at 278. Generally, damages for mental anguish are not recoverable for tortious interference with contract. Compare Creditwatch, Inc. v. Jackson , 157 S.W.3d 814, 818 (Tex. 2005) (stating in a case alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress that mental anguish is not compensable for tortious interference), and American National Petro leum Co. , 798 S.W.2d at 278 (basic measure of actual damages for tortious interfer ence with contract is same as measure of damages for breach of interfered-with contract), with City of Tyler v. Likes , 962 S.W.2d 489, 496 (Tex. 1997) (mental anguish is recoverable when it is the foreseeable result of breachingcertain special relation ships and “a very limited number of contracts dealing with intensely emotional non commercial subjects such as preparing a corpse for burial,...or delivering news of a family emergency....”); see also Soukup v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. , No. 01-11-00871-CV, 2012 WL 3134223, at *6–7 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 2, 2012, pet. dism’d) (mem. op.) (relying on Creditwatch and holding that because mental anguish damages are generally not recoverable for breach of contract they are also not recoverable for tortious interference with contract; the measure of damages for tortious interference “is the same as the measure of damages for breach of the interfered-with contract”). Elements of damages submitted separately. The Committee generally recom mends that multiple elements of damages be separately submitted to the jury. Harris County v. Smith , 96 S.W.3d 230, 233–34 (Tex. 2002) (broad-form submission of valid

472