In the underlying case of Walnut Street Associates, Inc. v. Brokerage Concepts, Inc., 2009 Pa. Super 191 (2009), the Superior Court held truthful statements by the Defendant, which caused one of Plaintiff's brokerage clients to terminate the business relationship, could not give rise to a tortious interference claim.  The Court expressly adopted Section 722(a) of the Restatement (2nd) of Torts, which says that one who intentionally causes a third party not to perform a contract, nevertheless does not interfere improperly with that contractual relationship if it has disseminated truthful information to the third party.

 

If the PA Supreme Court declines to follow the Superior Court, allowing recovery even where a Defendant's statements were entirely accurate, the holding will have significant implications— particularly for Defendants—in these types of cases.  Because it is common for tortious interference allegations to be combined with defamation, a holding that truth is not a defense to the former category of claims would essentially give Plaintiffs two bites at the apple: try to prove defamation; failing that, establish truthful statements caused a loss of business.  If such an expansive holding is handed down, businesses will not be able to rest secure in the knowledge their published statements concerning competitors were truthful.  Accordingly, this is a case that will be closely monitored.