DocketNumber: No. 368012
Judges: WAGNER, J.
Filed Date: 8/22/1991
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
Count three, in conjunction with count one, of the plaintiff's complaint alleges that after Starling became a world champion the defendants engaged in activities "designed to eliminate the plaintiff, Bowers from the financial reward he was entitled to. . . ." (Count one and three at para. 20). Further, count three attempts to plead a claim, against the defendant Sorenson, for tortious interference with the contractual relationship between Starling and Bowers." (Count three para. 31). In response, the defendant Sorenson filed a motion dated April 15, 1991 to strike counts three and four CT Page 7037 the plaintiff's complaint upon the ground of legal insufficiency. Subsequently plaintiff agreed to withdraw the present count four and file an amended count.
In Murray v. Bridgeport Hospital,
The duties of conduct giving rise to tort actions "are imposed by law, and are based primarily upon social policy." "Contract actions [however] are created to protect the interest in having promises performed. Contract obligations are imposed because of . . . the parties' manifesting consent, and are owed only to the specific individuals named in the contract."
Further, ". . . an ordinary contract action cannot be transformed into a tort by linking public policy to contract enforcement." Id. at 60. See, Powell v. Feroleto Steel Co., Inc.,
No authority cited by the plaintiff establish in Connecticut the existence of a cause of action for tortious interference with contractual relationships against a party to the contract.
Motion to strike the third count of the plaintiff's March 26, 1991 revised complaint is granted.
WAGNER, J.