An Illinois federal court denied a motion to dismiss a tortious interference claim, finding that the facts as alleged could sustain such a claim. In Echo, Inc v. Timberland Machines and Irrigation, Inc., 2009 WL 2746725 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 26, 2009), a Timberland dealership agreement was terminated by an outdoor power equipment manufacturer, Echo. In addition to claims against Echo for wrongful termination, Timberland asserted a claim of tortious interference with contract against a neighboring dealer (LEPCO) that took over Timberland’s former sales territory on the effective date of the termination. 

Timberland alleged that LEPCO “induced” Echo to terminate Timberland’s distribution agreement as a means of acquiring its territory, in violation of the Connecticut Franchise Act. The court found Timberland’s allegation that LEPCO knowingly persuaded Echo to violate the Connecticut law could plausibly amount to tortious interference. The motion to dismiss was therefore denied. On the same facts the court refused to dismiss claims against LEPCO for unjust enrichment and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.