Tort/Negligence – Counterclaims – Contract Case – Prospective Economic Advantage – Unfair Trade Practices – Negligence – Crop Treatments

Crop Production Services, Inc. v. Ormond (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-02-0125, 12 pp.) (James C. Dever III, Ch.J.) 4:11-CV-41; E.D.N.C.

Holding: Defendants allege generally that, once this contract dispute arose, plaintiff strong-armed defendants’ usual suppliers into refusing to do business with defendants. However, defendants do not explicitly assert that they expected to buy supplies from their “regular suppliers”; moreover, defendants do not allege the nature and length of their relationship with these suppliers or even the suppliers’ names and locations. Therefore, defendants have failed to state a claim for tortious interference with a prospective economic advantage.

Defendants’ counterclaims for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, unfair trade practices, and negligence are dismissed.

Even though defendants contend that their bank refused to renew their line of credit, they do not allege that the bank’s refusal was due to plaintiff’s malicious interference. Instead, the refusal was based on this “lawsuit and the potential ramifications.” Again, defendants fail to state a claim for tortious interference with a prospective economic advantage.

In support of their unfair trade practices claim, defendants allege plaintiff gave poor advice. A promisee’s dissatisfaction with a promisor’s performance of its contractual obligations does not constitute the substantial aggravating circumstances required to state a claim under G.S. § 75-1.1. Since defendants have failed to allege any acts beyond that of a breach of contract, their unfair trade practices counterclaim is dismissed.

As to defendants’ negligence counterclaim, the economic loss rule prohibits recovery for purely economic loss in tort when a contract has already allocated the risk.

Defendants claim that plaintiff was negligent in describing and recommending crop protection products, resulting in damages to plaintiffs’ crops and crops owned by neighboring farms. Defendants, however, contracted with plaintiff to recommend and provide appropriate crop protection products. Defendants’ tort counterclaims, therefore, are based solely on plaintiff’s negligence in performing its duties under the contract. Defendants do not allege any duties owed by plaintiff that are separate and distinct from the terms of the contract. Consequently, the economic loss rule bars defendants’ counterclaims for negligence and negligent misrepresentation.

Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss these counterclaims is granted.