iier claim in Oregon

2024Because a “plaintiff cannot be awarded damages based on an unpleaded theory,” Neikes v. Ticor Title Co. of Oregon, 291 Or App 720, 727 , 423 P3d 102 (2018), we reject plaintiffs’ fifth assignment of error.

2024Because a “plaintiff cannot be awarded damages based on an unpleaded theory,” Neikes v. Ticor Title Co. of Oregon, 291 Or App 720, 727 , 423 P3d 102 (2018), we reject plaintiffs’ fifth assignment of error.

2023The trial court granted that motion by written order “for the rea- sons stated on the record.” Storm 3 then filed its petition for attorney fees under ORS 20.105(1), asserting that Callahan had no objectively reasonable basis for pursuing his claims against Storm 3 and seeking the fees it incurred after the bankruptcy court issued its ruling on the dischargeability of the investors’ Cite as 326 Or App 525 (2023) 533 claims.

2023The trial court granted that motion by written order “for the rea- sons stated on the record.” Storm 3 then filed its petition for attorney fees under ORS 20.105(1), asserting that Callahan had no objectively reasonable basis for pursuing his claims against Storm 3 and seeking the fees it incurred after the bankruptcy court issued its ruling on the dischargeability of the investors’ Cite as 326 Or App 525 (2023) 533 claims.

2020Boss is one of the defendants in this action, but the facts about Boss are not relevant to this appeal. 3 The elements of an IIER claim are: “(1) the existence of a professional or business relationship * * *, (2) intentional interference with that relationship, (3) by a third party, (4) accomplished through improper means or for an improper purpose, (5) a causal effect between the interference and damage to the economic relationship, and (6) damages.” Porter v. Oba, Inc., 180 Or App 207, 213 , 42 P3d 931 , rev den, 334 Or 693 (2002).

2020Boss is one of the defendants in this action, but the facts about Boss are not relevant to this appeal. 3 The elements of an IIER claim are: “(1) the existence of a professional or business relationship * * *, (2) intentional interference with that relationship, (3) by a third party, (4) accomplished through improper means or for an improper purpose, (5) a causal effect between the interference and damage to the economic relationship, and (6) damages.” Porter v. Oba, Inc., 180 Or App 207, 213 , 42 P3d 931 , rev den, 334 Or 693 (2002).

2019As the Supreme Court has *560 explained, to succeed on an IIER claim, a plaintiff must show "(1) the existence of a professional or business relationship (which could include, e.g., a contract or a prospective economic advantage), (2) intentional interference with that relationship, (3) by a third party, (4) accomplished through improper means or for an improper purpose, (5) a causal effect between the interference and damage to the economic relationship, and (6) damages." McGanty v. Staudenraus , 321 Or. 532 , 535, 901 P.2d 841 (1995).

2019As the Supreme Court has *560 explained, to succeed on an IIER claim, a plaintiff must show "(1) the existence of a professional or business relationship (which could include, e.g., a contract or a prospective economic advantage), (2) intentional interference with that relationship, (3) by a third party, (4) accomplished through improper means or for an improper purpose, (5) a causal effect between the interference and damage to the economic relationship, and (6) damages." McGanty v. Staudenraus , 321 Or. 532 , 535, 901 P.2d 841 (1995).

2019In their second assignment of error, plaintiffs assert that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Hampton on plaintiffs' ELL claim. 4 "Oregon's ELL imposes liability on 'all owners, contractors or subcontractors and other persons having charge of, or responsibility for' work involving a risk or danger." Yeatts v. Polygon Northwest Co. , 360 Or. 170 , 179, 379 P.3d 445 (2016) (quoting ORS 654.305 ). 5 In addition to a worker's direct employer, ELL liability may be imposed on an indirect employer "who (1) is engaged with the plaintiff's direct employer in a common enterp

2019In their second assignment of error, plaintiffs assert that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Hampton on plaintiffs' ELL claim. 4 "Oregon's ELL imposes liability on 'all owners, contractors or subcontractors and other persons having charge of, or responsibility for' work involving a risk or danger." Yeatts v. Polygon Northwest Co. , 360 Or. 170 , 179, 379 P.3d 445 (2016) (quoting ORS 654.305 ). 5 In addition to a worker's direct employer, ELL liability may be imposed on an indirect employer "who (1) is engaged with the plaintiff's direct employer in a common enterp

2019In their second assignment of error, plaintiffs assert that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Hampton on plaintiffs' ELL claim. 4 "Oregon's ELL imposes liability on 'all owners, contractors or subcontractors and other persons having charge of, or responsibility for' work involving a risk or danger." Yeatts v. Polygon Northwest Co. , 360 Or. 170 , 179, 379 P.3d 445 (2016) (quoting ORS 654.305 ). 5 In addition to a worker's direct employer, ELL liability may be imposed on an indirect employer "who (1) is engaged with the plaintiff's direct employer in a common enterp

2019In their second assignment of error, plaintiffs assert that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Hampton on plaintiffs' ELL claim. 4 "Oregon's ELL imposes liability on 'all owners, contractors or subcontractors and other persons having charge of, or responsibility for' work involving a risk or danger." Yeatts v. Polygon Northwest Co. , 360 Or. 170 , 179, 379 P.3d 445 (2016) (quoting ORS 654.305 ). 5 In addition to a worker's direct employer, ELL liability may be imposed on an indirect employer "who (1) is engaged with the plaintiff's direct employer in a common enterp

2018With respect to damages on an IIER claim, a plaintiff must show that, as a result of the interference, "the plaintiff was damaged beyond the fact of the interference." Lund v. Arbonne International, Inc. , 132 Or.

2018With respect to damages on an IIER claim, a plaintiff must show that, as a result of the interference, "the plaintiff was damaged beyond the fact of the interference." Lund v. Arbonne International, Inc. , 132 Or.

2018IIER-contract claims against Hanenburg We also affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's IIER- *217 contract claim as against Hanenburg *667 on the basis that plaintiff failed to produce evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact that Hanenburg interfered by improper means or for an improper purpose. 6 For an IIER claim, "[d]eliberate interference alone does not give rise to tort liability." Northwest Natural Gas Co. v. Chase Gardens, Inc. , 328 Or. 487 , 498, 982 P.2d 1117 (1999).

2018IIER-contract claims against Hanenburg We also affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's IIER- *217 contract claim as against Hanenburg *667 on the basis that plaintiff failed to produce evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact that Hanenburg interfered by improper means or for an improper purpose. 6 For an IIER claim, "[d]eliberate interference alone does not give rise to tort liability." Northwest Natural Gas Co. v. Chase Gardens, Inc. , 328 Or. 487 , 498, 982 P.2d 1117 (1999).