SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARY

Virginia Significant Case Summary

Hopkins v. Ryan
Virginia Court of Appeals
Record No. 1192-25-3

Decided: June 23, 2026

The Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s dismissal on demurrer of claims by an employee against his supervisor for tortious interference and defamation.

Background

Plaintiff was employed by a company to sell distribution products on a commission basis. Following a disagreement, Plaintiff’s supervisor, Defendant, allegedly began to transfer high-profile clients from Plaintiff to himself. Defendant also allegedly caused the delivery of defective parts to a client of Plaintiff and then created a purchase order and invoice attributing the action to Plaintiff. Clients then refused to work with Plaintiff. Plaintiff complained to his supervisor but ultimately resigned from the company. Plaintiff later filed suit for two counts against Defendant: (1) tortious interference and (2) defamation. The trial court sustained Defendant’s demurrer and dismissed the amended complaint for both Counts. Plaintiff appealed.

The Court of Appeals of Virginia reversed the trial court on both counts. The Court found the amended complaint pled facts sufficient to satisfy a tortious interference claim. The Court distinguished the standard needed to plead a probability of future commissions for a business expectancy claim as being different from a tortious interference with contract claim. Plaintiff sufficiently pled a reasonable expectation of economic benefit with the involved client. The Court relied on facts pled to support the second count of defamation as evidence of an improper purpose in the tortious interference claim as well as evidence Defendant acted outside the scope of his agency. This was a more expansive review than the trial court’s view of the facts alleged. The Court of Appeals also inferred knowledge on the part of Defendant of the commission-based payments from the facts pled by Plaintiff that established Defendant’s position as supervisor over Plaintiff.

The Court of Appeals of Virginia also reversed the dismissal of Plaintiff’s defamation claim. The trial court dismissed the claim after finding a false invoice was not a statement, no exact words were pled, the invoice could not be directly related to Plaintiff and the invoice did not carry the requisite “sting.” The Court of Appeals of Virginia was not as strict in its interpretations. The Court found that a photograph of an invoice which communicated a false incompetence by Plaintiff to his client satisfied the “exact words” requirement necessary under Virginia law. Because this incompetence was directly tied to his reputation within his profession, the communication was enough at the pleading stage. However, the Court declined to fully expand defamation per se to include this particular scheme absent a fully developed record.

Holding

The Court of Appeals of Virginia distinguished a tortious interference with business expectancy claim from a tortious interference with contract claim and provided an expansive framework for considering reasonable inferences from facts pled in a complaint. Further, the Court also expanded what can be considered a “communication” in a defamation claim. The trial courts dismissal of the claim on demurrer was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Questions about this case can be directed to Danielle Kent at (804) 566-3571 or dkent@tthlaw.com.