Background
Kennedy Law Group filed a two-count complaint for tortious interference with contractual and business relationships against Dale Swope, Swope Rodante P.A., and Vicki S. Uiterwyk. The complaint alleged Kennedy Law Group referred hundreds of Engle-progeny tobacco litigation cases to the firm of Mrs. Uiterwyk’s husband, Hendrik Uiterwyk P.A., on a contingency fee basis entitling Kennedy Law Group to twenty-five percent of any recovery. After Hendrik Uiterwyk suffered a stroke and eventually died in December 2020, Mrs. Uiterwyk took over administrative duties for the firm, including exploring sale of the Engle cases. Kennedy Law Group alleged that Mrs. Uiterwyk and Swope interfered with its referral and contingency agreements.
The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. Kennedy Law Group argued the trial court improperly considered matters and affirmative defenses that did not appear on the face of the complaint.
The Court’s Holding
The Second DCA reversed, holding that the trial court erred by relying on information and an affirmative defense that did not appear on the face of the complaint when granting the dismissal. On a motion to dismiss, the court’s review is limited to the four corners of the complaint—taking all well-pleaded allegations as true. If the complaint states a cause of action on its face, the motion must be denied regardless of potential affirmative defenses that may be raised in an answer. Here, the complaint adequately alleged the elements of tortious interference, and the matters the trial court relied upon to dismiss went beyond what appeared in the pleading.
Key Takeaways
- A trial court may not consider affirmative defenses or facts outside the four corners of the complaint when ruling on a motion to dismiss.
- If a complaint for tortious interference alleges the required elements—existence of a business relationship, defendant’s knowledge of it, intentional interference, and resulting damages—the motion to dismiss must be denied.
- Defenses to tortious interference claims (such as privilege, justification, or lack of valid contract) must be raised in an answer and resolved on summary judgment or at trial.
Why It Matters
This case arises from the ongoing fallout of Florida’s massive Engle tobacco litigation, which generated billions in verdicts and settlements. As original referring attorneys pass away or become incapacitated, disputes over referral fee entitlements are increasing. For civil litigators, this decision reinforces the black-letter rule that motions to dismiss test the sufficiency of the pleading alone—trial courts cannot preview affirmative defenses or resolve factual disputes at that stage. The ruling ensures that parties alleging tortious interference with valuable fee arrangements will have their day in court.