Plaintiffs in this case were long time home delivery distributors of print editions of the Saint Louis Post Dispatch; some may be surprised that in this digital age such activity still occurs. In the contracts between the Post and the individual distributors, each distributor was given an exclusive geographical area in which to throw papers on the lawn. The Home Delivery Agreements also provided that Defendants will not “aid, abet or assist in the creation of other delivery systems or distributors” within the agreed-upon territories of the Plaintiffs. Sometime after the execution of these agreements, Defendants created a system of e-delivery of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch newspaper to customers who reside within Plaintiffs’ territories.
Plaintiffs sued the Post for (I) breach of contract, (II) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (III) tortious interference with business expectancy, (IV) malicious trespass to personality (violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.330), and (V) punitive damages. Plaintiffs attempted to plead the tort of interference with business expectancy to support their claim of punitive damages, that would not lie under these facts based on the contract and other claims… In addition, the tort measure of damages is broader than the measure of damages in a breach of contract case. On first blush you would think the tort of interference with business expectancy would lie here, in that the Plaintiffs certainly had an expectation that they could conduct their business without direct competition with the Post’s e-delivery system. However, that’s not the law and the Court dismissed the tort on the pleadings.
In dismissing the count for tortious interference with a business expectancy, the Court relied on well-established Missouri law that holds that this cause of action will not lie against another party to the contract. The rational for this prohibition is any duty owed to the plaintiffs by the defendant arises from the contracts between the plaintiffs and defendant, and the plaintiffs’ remedy, if any, was for the defendant’s breach of those agreements. Of course, under a breach of contract theory, damages will be limited to contract damages, not tort damages.
In essence an act of tortious interference with a business expectancy will only lie against a third party, a stranger to the contract, that improperly interferes with the other party’s contractual relations.
BEXTERMUELLER NEWS DISTRIBUTORS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LEE ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., No. 4:22-CV-00344-SPM, 2023 WL 2187465, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 23, 2023)