Does Utah require improper means for intentional interference with contract claims? C.R. England v. Swift Explained

The Utah Supreme Court in C.R. England v. Swift definitively resolved a question that had created confusion in federal courts: whether Utah’s tort of intentional interference with contract requires proof of “improper means.” The Court reaffirmed this requirement and provided important clarification on what constitutes improper conduct.

Background and Facts

C.R. England, a trucking company, trains drivers and requires them to work exclusively for nine months under employment contracts. England alleged that Swift Transportation regularly recruited its drivers during this exclusivity period by offering better compensation. When England sued for intentional interference with contract, Swift moved for summary judgment, arguing England failed to prove “improper means.” Conflicting federal court rulings on Utah law prompted the district court to certify the question to the Utah Supreme Court.

Key Legal Issues

The Court addressed two critical questions: First, whether improper means is an element of intentional interference with contract in Utah. Second, if required, what constitutes improper means. England argued the Court should return to the earlier Bunnell v. Bills standard that only required proof of interference “unless done with just cause or excuse.”

Court’s Analysis and Holding

Applying the Eldridge v. Johndrow factors for overturning precedent, the Court declined to overturn St. Benedict’s Development Co. v. St. Benedict’s Hospital, which established the improper means requirement. The Court found this rule has become “firmly embedded in Utah law” over 28 years and represents sound legal policy consistent with the majority of jurisdictions. The Court defined improper means as conduct “contrary to law, such as violations of statutes, regulations, or recognized common-law rules,” or violation of “an established standard of a trade or profession.” Importantly, the Court clarified that industry standards must be objective and “industry-wide,” not merely individual company policies.

Practice Implications

This decision provides crucial clarity for Utah practitioners handling business tort claims. Plaintiffs must prove improper means through evidence of statutory violations, common law breaches, or objective industry standards supported by expert testimony. The ruling protects legitimate competitive conduct while ensuring accountability for truly wrongful interference. Federal courts applying Utah law now have definitive guidance on these elements.