## Facts

- Russ Francis entered a written employment contract in 1996 to serve as sports director for KGMB, operated by Lee Enterprises, Inc.
- KGMB terminated Francis on January 20, 1997.
- Francis sued alleging, among other claims, breach of contract and “tortious breach of contract,” asserting the breach was willful, wanton, reckless, and/or in bad faith.
- After removal to federal court, the employer moved to dismiss the tortious-breach claim on the ground that Hawaiʻi law did not recognize it in the employment context.
- The federal court certified to the Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi whether Hawaiʻi recognizes a tortious breach of contract cause of action in the employment context.

## Issues

1. Whether Hawaiʻi law recognizes a cause of action for tortious breach of contract in the employment context based solely on a willful, wanton, reckless, or bad-faith breach of an employment contract.
2. Whether tort-style remedies (including emotional distress and punitive damages) are available for breach of contract absent an independent tort duty and conduct exceeding the breach itself.

## Decision

- The court answered the certified question “no”: Hawaiʻi does not recognize tortious breach of contract actions in the employment context.
- The court rejected prior doctrine to the extent it permitted tort recovery merely because a breach was characterized as wanton or reckless.
- The court held that tort recovery for conduct associated with a breach of contract is unavailable unless the conduct (1) violates an independently recognized tort duty and (2) transcends the breach of the contract.
- The court limited emotional distress damages for breach of contract to situations where such damages are expressly provided for or clearly within the parties’ contemplation given the contract’s nature.

## Legal Principles

- A breach of contract, even if willful or in bad faith, does not by itself support tort recovery; tort remedies require breach of an independent tort duty and conduct beyond the contract breach.
- Emotional distress damages are recoverable in contract only if the contract specifically provides for them or the contract’s nature shows they were within the parties’ contemplation or expectation.
- Punitive damages generally require tortious conduct; eliminating stand-alone “tortious breach of contract” restricts punitive damages for contract breaches unless an independent tort is shown.
- Contract law protects bargained-for expectations; tort law addresses duties imposed by law, and the remedies should not be merged without a distinct tort basis.

## Conclusion

Hawaiʻi declined to recognize “tortious breach of contract” as a stand-alone employment claim and clarified that tort damages for contract-related conduct are available only when the defendant’s conduct breaches an independent tort duty and goes beyond the breach itself, with emotional distress damages limited to those contemplated or expressly provided in the contract.


Francis v. Lee Enters., Inc., 89 Haw. 234, 971 P.2d 707 (Haw. 1999)