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 willful and intentional act proximately caused damage; (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. Under Prudential Ins. Co. v. Financial Review Servs. (Tex. 2000), the defense rests on the exercise of either (1) the defendant's own legal rights or (2) a good-faith claim to a colorable legal right, even if that claim proves mistaken. If the court finds a legal right to interfere as a matter of law, motive is irrelevant. If the right is only colorable, the jury decides good faith. 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. As restated in Coinmach, the plaintiff must show: (1) reasonable probability that the plaintiff would have entered into a business relationship with a third party; (2) that the defendant either acted with a conscious desire to prevent the relationship or knew the interference was certain or substantially certain to result; (3) independently tortious or unlawful conduct by the defendant; (4) proximate cause; (5) actual damage or loss. 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 discarded the abstractions Texas courts had used, such as whether conduct was "wrongful", "malicious" or "improper", and the overlapping concepts of malice, justification and privilege, which gave no meaningful description of culpable conduct. 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) exemplary damages if fraud, malice or gross negligence is proved by clear and convincing evidence (subject to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ch. 41 caps). Damages must be proven with reasonable certainty; speculative damages do not support recovery.
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). Whether the discovery rule or fraudulent concealment defers accrual depends on the facts.
In Texas commercial disputes, the prospective-relations claim's independently-tortious requirement is often the central issue. Existing-contract claims turn on the contract, the act of interference, and the defendant's knowledge, with justification as an affirmative defense. Prospective-relations claims fail without independently tortious or unlawful conduct, and lawful competition is not actionable under Sturges. Both claims are fact-driven.