Ride PDX v. Tee & B, LLC

“Even when defendant’s objectives are not improper, for instance the pursuit of competition or other legitimate interests, defendant may still be liable for using improper means to achieve those objectives.” Top Service Body Shop v. Allstate Ins. Co., 283 Or 201, 209 (1978).

Ride PDX and Tee & B, LLC leased adjacent commercial spaces. Tee & B complained to the landlord that the noise from Ride PDX’s indoor cycling studio violated the “quiet enjoyment” provision of their lease. After prevailing in the eviction litigation, Ride PDX sued Tee & B for intentional interference with economic relations, alleging they tortiously interfered with Ride PDX’s business relationship with the landlord. Summary judgment was granted in Tee & B’s favor, and Ride PDX appealed, arguing they presented sufficient evidence to raise a jury issue as to each prong of the claim. “Even when defendant’s objectives are not improper, for instance the pursuit of competition or other legitimate interests, defendant may still be liable for using improper means to achieve those objectives.” Top Service Body Shop v. Allstate Ins. Co., 283 Or 201, 209 (1978). Ride PDX presented evidence that could lead a reasonable juror to find that Tee & B exaggerated or lied about the effects of Ride PDX’s studio noise on their business. Reasonable jurors could find that Tee & B made misrepresentations to the landlord, which could prove the use of improper means to interfere with Ride PDX’s economic relationship with the landlord. Therefore, the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to Tee & B. Reversed and remanded.