Utah Court of Appeals
What must a plaintiff prove to establish intentional interference with economic relations? Alpine Orthopaedic v. IHC Explained
Summary
Alpine Orthopaedic sued IHC for intentional interference with economic relations after IHC attempted to recruit Dr. Finnoff from Alpine in 2004. When Utah State University later issued an RFP for team physician services in 2006 and awarded the contract to IHC, Alpine claimed IHC’s earlier recruitment attempt caused this injury.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In Alpine Orthopaedic Specialists, LLC v. Intermountain Healthcare, Inc., the Utah Court of Appeals addressed the essential elements required to prove intentional interference with economic relations, particularly the critical requirement of establishing causation between the defendant’s conduct and the plaintiff’s injury.
Background and Facts
Alpine Orthopaedic had a personal service agreement with Utah State University to provide team physician services through Dr. Jonathan Finnoff. In 2004, IHC attempted to recruit Dr. Finnoff away from Alpine, but the employment never materialized due to salary concerns and other factors. Dr. Finnoff continued working for Alpine until moving to Oregon in 2005. In 2006, USU issued a request for proposals for the physician services and ultimately awarded the contract to IHC. Alpine sued IHC for intentional interference with contractual or economic relations, claiming IHC’s 2004 recruitment attempt caused Alpine to lose the USU contract.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed whether Alpine had established the necessary elements for intentional interference with economic relations: (1) intentional interference with existing or potential economic relations, (2) for an improper purpose or by improper means, and (3) causing injury to the plaintiff. The central issue was whether Alpine could establish causation between IHC’s 2004 recruitment attempt and USU’s 2006 decision to rebid the contract.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court granted summary judgment in favor of IHC, finding Alpine failed to establish any causal connection between IHC’s attempted recruitment of Dr. Finnoff in 2004 and USU’s decision to issue the RFP in 2006. The undisputed facts showed that Dr. Finnoff never left Alpine for IHC, and USU’s motivation for rebidding was based on the original contract not being lawfully bid and USU’s desire to avoid dependence on any single physician. Alpine produced no evidence that IHC’s recruitment attempt caused USU to issue the RFP or award the contract to IHC.
Practice Implications
This decision emphasizes that proving intentional interference requires more than showing the defendant engaged in competitive conduct. Practitioners must establish a clear causal link between the alleged interference and the claimed injury. Mere attempted recruitment of employees, without resulting harm or connection to subsequent business losses, is insufficient to support an interference claim. The case also highlights the importance of preserving administrative remedies, as Alpine’s failure to properly appeal the procurement officer’s decision contributed to its inability to establish causation.
Case Details
Case Name
Alpine Orthopaedic v. IHC
Citation
2012 UT App 29
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20100865-CA
Date Decided
February 2, 2012
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A party claiming intentional interference with economic relations must establish a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered, and mere attempted recruitment of an employee without resulting harm is insufficient to support the claim.
Standard of Review
Correctness for summary judgment determinations
Practice Tip
When pursuing intentional interference claims, ensure you can establish a clear causal link between the defendant’s conduct and your client’s actual injury, as mere attempted interference without resulting harm is insufficient.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.