A claim for tortious interference with economic relations requires proof of four elements, which are: ‘(1) intentional and wilful acts; (2) calculated to cause damage to the plaintiffs in their lawful business; (3) done with the unlawful purpose to cause such damage and loss, without right or justifiable cause on the part of the defendants (which constitutes malice); and (4) actual damage and loss resulting.’ Alexander v. Evander, 336 Md. 635, 652 (1994) (quoting Willner v. Silverman, 109 Md. 341, 355 (1909)). Maryland courts have emphasized that a plaintiff must prove both a tortious intent and that the alleged interference “was accomplished through improper means.” Lyon v. Campbell, 120 Md. App. 412, 431 (1998) (citing inter alia, Macklin v. Robert Logan Assocs., 334 Md. 287, 301 (1994)).

​In Alexander, 336 Md. at 657, the Court said: [W]rongful or malicious interference with economic relations is interference by conduct that is independently wrongful or unlawful, quite apart from its effect on the plaintiff’s business relationships. Wrongful or unlawful acts include common law torts and “‘violence or intimidation, defamation, injurious falsehood or other fraud, violation of criminal law, and the institution or threat of groundless civil suits or criminal prosecutions in bad faith.’” K & K Management v. Lee, [] 316 Md. [137, 166 (1989)], quoting Prosser, Law of Torts, § 130, 952-953 (4th ed. 1971). In addition, “actual malice,” in the sense of ill will, hatred or spite, may be sufficient to make an act of interference wrongful where the defendant’s malice is the primary factor that motivates the interference. (Some citations omitted.) 

​To prove that a defendant has tortiously interfered with a contract, the plaintiff must prove six elements: (1) The existence of a contract or a legally protected interest between the plaintiff and a third party; (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the contract; (3) the defendant’s intentional inducement of the third party to breach or otherwise render impossible the performance of the contract; (4) without justification on the part of the defendant; (5) the subsequent breach by the third party; and (6) damages to the plaintiff resulting therefrom. Brass Metal Products, Inc. v. E-J Enterprises, Inc., 189 Md. App. 310, 348 (2009) (and cases cited therein).
​
In Rite Aid Corp. et al. v. Lake Shore Investors, 298 Md. 611, 621 (1984), the Court of Appeals expressly adopted Restatement (Second) of Torts § 774A. The Rite Aid Court said, Section 774A reduces Prosser’s view to specifics. It provides: “(1) One who is liable to another for interference with a contract or prospective contractual relation is liable for damages for (a) the pecuniary loss of the benefits of the contract or the prospective relation; (b) consequential losses for which the interference is a legal cause; and (c) emotional distress or actual harm to reputation, if they are reasonably to be expected to result from the interference. (2) In an action for interference with a contract by inducing or causing a third person to break the contract with the other, the fact that the third person is liable for the breach does not affect the amount of damages awardable against the actor; but any damages in fact paid by the third person will reduce the damages actually recoverable on the judgment.” Comment a points out that “[T]his Section states only the rules applicable to the recovery of compensatory damages. Since the tort is an intentional one, punitive damages are recovered in these actions under appropriate circumstances.” Id. at 620 (footnote omitted).

Jeffrey R. Schmieler, Esquire

        Under the law, an employer or a principal is responsible for damages or injuries caused by the wrongful or negligent acts of employees or agents if those acts causing the damages or injuries were within the scope of the employment.  An agent who is not an employee is regarded as an independent contractor. One who engages as independent contractor is not responsible for damages or physical injuries caused by the acts of that contractor, unless the acts were authorized, directed or intended by the one engaging the services of the contractor.

            The primary consideration is the right to control the actions of the person committing the wrong The exceptions and instances wherein liability may still be imposed are (1) apparent agency; (2) ratification; or non-delegable duty.