Top Serv. Body Shop, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co. - 283 Or. 201, 582 P.2d 1365 (1978)

Rule:

It is plaintiff's burden to prove both that defendant intentionally interfered with plaintiff's prospective sales and that defendant had no privilege to do so. The propriety of defendant's objective or motive is really a part of plaintiff's case rather than an affirmative defense of privilege. However, even when defendant's objectives are not improper, for instance the pursuit of competition or other legitimate interests, defendant may still be liable for using improper means to achieve these objectives.

Facts:

Plaintiff, Top Service Body Shop, Inc., operated an automobile body shop. Defendant AllState Insurance Company ceased directing business to plaintiff because plaintiff refused to accept price concessions. Plaintiff filed a price discrimination and unfair competition suit alleging that defendant made false statements about the quality of plaintiff's work and threatened to withdraw insurance with the intent to drive plaintiff out of business. The jury returned a verdict in plaintiff's favor. Defendant contended that the evidence presented, and its practice of designating certain auto body shops, was insufficient to support a verdict for plaintiff. The lower court upheld a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Plaintiff appealed. 

Issue:

Under the circumstances, could defendant be held liable for price discrimination and unfair competition, thereby rendering the judgment notwithstanding the verdict an error?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The Court noted proof of a violation of the Antiprice Discrimination Law, of Or. Rev. Stat. § 646 required (1) that the seller or purveyor was engaged in commerce, (2) that he directly or indirectly discriminated in price between different purchasers of commodities, or services or output of a service trade, of like grade and quality, (3) that this occurred in the course of such commerce, (4) that the effect of such discrimination may be substantially (a) to lessen competition in any line of commerce, or (b) to tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or (c) to injure, destroy or prevent competition (i) with either party to the discriminatory concession or (ii) with customers of either of them. In this case, the Court held that the plaintiff did not offer any evidence that competition was lessened or that the practice had any monopolizing effect in the industry, and the record did not support an inference that defendant had a design or purpose to put plaintiff out of business. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment notwithstanding the verdict.