tortious interference claim in Illinois

2021See id. at 1286-87 (“policy language referencing ‘the offense’ of ‘the publication of … other defamatory or disparaging material’ is broad enough to support coverage of certain claims for intentional inference with contract or business relations” (emphasis added)).

2021See id. at 1286-87 (“policy language referencing ‘the offense’ of ‘the publication of … other defamatory or disparaging material’ is broad enough to support coverage of certain claims for intentional inference with contract or business relations” (emphasis added)).

2015Accordingly, we hold that the trial court correctly granted Michael's motion for summary judgment on the tortious interference claim. ¶ 79 Malicious Prosecution ¶ 80 For the malicious prosecution claim, plaintiffs needed to show "(1) the commencement or continuance of an original criminal or civil judicial proceeding by the defendant; (2) the termination of the proceeding in favor of the plaintiff; (3) the absence of probable cause for such proceeding; (4) the presence of malice; and (5) damages resulting to the plaintiff." Ritchey v. Maksin, 71 Ill. 2d 470, 475 (1978).

2015Accordingly, we hold that the trial court correctly granted Michael’s motion for summary judgment on the tortious interference claim. ¶ 79 Malicious Prosecution ¶ 80 For the malicious prosecution claim, plaintiffs needed to show “(1) the commencement or continuance of an original criminal or civil judicial proceeding by the defendant; (2) the termination of the proceeding in favor of the plaintiff; (3) the absence of probable cause for such proceeding; (4) the presence of malice; and (5) damages resulting to the plaintiff.” Ritchey v. Maksin, 71 Ill. 2d 470, 475 (1978).

2011A claim for tortious interference with a contractual relationship consists of the following elements: “(1) the existence of a valid and enforceable contract between the plaintiff and another; (2) the defendant's awareness of the contract; (3) the defendant's intentional and unjustified inducement of a breach of the contract; (4) a subsequent breach by the other, caused by the defendant's conduct; and (5) damages.” Complete Conference Coordinators, Inc. v. Kumon North America, Inc., 394 Ill.

2011A claim for tortious interference with a contractual relationship consists of the following elements: “(1) the existence of a valid and enforceable contract between the plaintiff and another; (2) the defendant’s awareness of the contract; (3) the defendant’s intentional and unjustified inducement of a breach of the contract; (4) a subsequent breach by the other, caused by the defendant’s conduct; and (5) damages.” Complete Conference Coordinators, Inc. v. Kumon North America, Inc., 394 Ill.

2025It is well established that “Illinois courts require that a tortious interference claim be supported by allegations that the defendant acted 3 This cause of action is also known as “intentional interference with prospective economic advantage” (Anderson v. Vanden Dorpel, 172 Ill. 2d 399, 406 (1996)). 540 North Lake Shore Drive Condominium Ass’n v. MCZ Development Corp., 2025 IL App (1st) 230733, ¶ 37. -7- 2025 IL App (2d) 240703-U toward a third party.” Du Page Aviation Corp. v. Du Page Airport Authority, 229 Ill.

2025It is well established that “Illinois courts require that a tortious interference claim be supported by allegations that the defendant acted 3 This cause of action is also known as “intentional interference with prospective economic advantage” (Anderson v. Vanden Dorpel, 172 Ill. 2d 399, 406 (1996)). 540 North Lake Shore Drive Condominium Ass’n v. MCZ Development Corp., 2025 IL App (1st) 230733, ¶ 37 . -7- 2025 IL App (2d) 240703-U toward a third party.” Du Page Aviation Corp. v. Du Page Airport Authority, 229 Ill.

2023To support this assertion, the court cites our supreme court’s decision in Fellhauer v. City of Geneva, 142 Ill. 2d 495, 511 (1991), and the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Webb v. Frawley, 906 F.3d 569, 580-81 (7th Cir. 2018).

1994(Fellhauer v. City of Geneva (1991), 142 Ill. 2d 495, 511 .) Additionally, Illinois courts require that a tortious interference claim be supported by allegations that the defendant acted toward a third party.

2012See also In re Estate of Boyar, 2012 IL App (1st) 111013, ¶ 30 . ¶ 24 Ellis went on to reconcile the plain language of subsection (a) with an earlier case in which the court barred a tortious interference claim “where a plaintiff foregoes an opportunity to file a [tortious interference] claim within the six-month period for a will contest.” Ellis, 236 Ill. 2d at 53 .

2012Thus, the “holding in Robinson was limited to not recognizing the tort action where plaintiffs have an opportunity to contest a probated will but choose not to do so, and subsequently enter into an agreement to take no further court action.” Ellis, 236 Ill. 2d at 54 . ¶ 27 In contrast, the court concluded, where a will contest remedy is not “available” to a litigant, that litigant may proceed with a tortious interference claim.

2009The court acknowledged the rule in Florida that “ ‘if adequate relief is available in a probate proceeding, then that remedy must be exhausted before a tortious interference claim may be pursued.’ ” Schilling, 952 So. 2d at 1236 , quoting DeWitt v. Duce, 408 So. 2d 216, 218 (Fla. 1981).

1984Nevertheless, the DeWitt court went on to make the broad general statement that “[t]he rule is that if adequate relief is available in a probate proceeding, then that remedy must be exhausted before a tortious interference claim may be pursued” ( 408 So. 2d 216, 218 ), and suggested that what the plaintiffs might have done was offer the prior will for probate while attacking the later will on grounds of undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity ( 408 So. 2d 216, 220 ).

2026See Clarage v. Kuzma, 342 Ill.

2025It is well established that “Illinois courts require that a tortious interference claim be supported by allegations that the defendant acted 3 This cause of action is also known as “intentional interference with prospective economic advantage” (Anderson v. Vanden Dorpel, 172 Ill. 2d 399, 406 (1996)). 540 North Lake Shore Drive Condominium Ass’n v. MCZ Development Corp., 2025 IL App (1st) 230733, ¶ 37. -7- 2025 IL App (2d) 240703-U toward a third party.” Du Page Aviation Corp. v. Du Page Airport Authority, 229 Ill.

2025It is well established that “Illinois courts require that a tortious interference claim be supported by allegations that the defendant acted 3 This cause of action is also known as “intentional interference with prospective economic advantage” (Anderson v. Vanden Dorpel, 172 Ill. 2d 399, 406 (1996)). 540 North Lake Shore Drive Condominium Ass’n v. MCZ Development Corp., 2025 IL App (1st) 230733, ¶ 37 . -7- 2025 IL App (2d) 240703-U toward a third party.” Du Page Aviation Corp. v. Du Page Airport Authority, 229 Ill.

2025See, e.g., Boffa, 2015 IL App (1st) 142984, ¶ 28 (“It is not enough for the defendant’s -9- 2025 IL App (2d) 240703-U action to impact a third party; rather, the defendant’s action must be directed towards the third party.”).

2025See, e.g., Boffa, 2015 IL App (1st) 142984, ¶ 28 (“It is not enough for the defendant’s -9- 2025 IL App (2d) 240703-U action to impact a third party; rather, the defendant’s action must be directed towards the third party.”).

2025It is well established that “Illinois courts require that a tortious interference claim be supported by allegations that the defendant acted 3 This cause of action is also known as “intentional interference with prospective economic advantage” (Anderson v. Vanden Dorpel, 172 Ill. 2d 399, 406 (1996)). 540 North Lake Shore Drive Condominium Ass’n v. MCZ Development Corp., 2025 IL App (1st) 230733, ¶ 37. -7- 2025 IL App (2d) 240703-U toward a third party.” Du Page Aviation Corp. v. Du Page Airport Authority, 229 Ill.

2025It is well established that “Illinois courts require that a tortious interference claim be supported by allegations that the defendant acted 3 This cause of action is also known as “intentional interference with prospective economic advantage” (Anderson v. Vanden Dorpel, 172 Ill. 2d 399, 406 (1996)). 540 North Lake Shore Drive Condominium Ass’n v. MCZ Development Corp., 2025 IL App (1st) 230733, ¶ 37 . -7- 2025 IL App (2d) 240703-U toward a third party.” Du Page Aviation Corp. v. Du Page Airport Authority, 229 Ill.

2023To support this assertion, the court cites our supreme court’s decision in Fellhauer v. City of Geneva, 142 Ill. 2d 495, 511 (1991), and the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Webb v. Frawley, 906 F.3d 569, 580-81 (7th Cir. 2018).

2023See Landmark Properties, Inc. v. Architects International-Chicago, 172 Ill.

2023App. 3d 191, 195 (1990) (explaining that a tortious interference claim without an enforceable contract, such as a physician-patient’s terminable at will relationship, may be brought as a claim of tortious interference with prospective economic advantage); Kemper v. Worcester, 106 Ill.

2022Dowd & Dowd, Ltd. v. Gleason, 181 Ill. 2d 460, 484 (1998).

2013See Turner, 302 Ill.

2012See also In re Estate of Boyar, 2012 IL App (1st) 111013, ¶ 30 . ¶ 24 Ellis went on to reconcile the plain language of subsection (a) with an earlier case in which the court barred a tortious interference claim “where a plaintiff foregoes an opportunity to file a [tortious interference] claim within the six-month period for a will contest.” Ellis, 236 Ill. 2d at 53 .

1994App. 3d 525, 529 , 442 N.E.2d 666, 668 (Heiple, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (asserting that in a tortious interference claim, plaintiff need only prove that defendant acted intentionally and without justification).