## Facts

- Kathy Stewart was injured in an automobile accident caused by Eloise Barclay, who was insured by The Home Insurance Company (Home).
- Stewart hired attorney William Liston under a written contingency-fee contract: 33⅓% if settled without suit and 40% if suit was filed.
- Home assigned claims representative Jo Reynolds to handle the claim; Home did not dispute liability for Barclay’s fault.
- Reynolds repeatedly asked Liston for an itemization of Stewart’s medical bills and related losses, but Liston did not provide the requested information.
- Stewart began receiving collection letters and threats of wage garnishment over unpaid hospital bills and could not reach Liston.
- Stewart wrote Home requesting that her claim be settled; after a second request, Reynolds called Stewart.
- Stewart told Reynolds she could not contact Liston and had decided to handle the claim herself; Reynolds understood Stewart intended to terminate Liston, though Stewart did not clearly state that Liston had already been discharged or had withdrawn.
- Reynolds did not contact Liston or send him copies of Stewart’s settlement requests, despite knowing Stewart had been represented and knowing Home had an internal practice of not dealing directly with represented claimants.
- Stewart provided Home with her medical bills and other documentation; Home settled directly with Stewart for payment of medical bills, lost wages, and $1,000 cash.
- Liston learned of the settlement nearly two years later. Liston and his law partners sued Home in federal court (diversity) for tortious interference with the attorney-client fee contract.
- The case was tried to the court (bench trial), resulting in findings of fact and conclusions of law.

## Issues

1. Whether Home’s direct settlement with Stewart, despite knowledge of Liston’s contingency-fee contract, constituted tortious interference with contractual relations under Mississippi law.
2. Whether Home’s conduct was unprivileged or unjustified—and carried the required wrongful purpose or malice—when Stewart initiated contact and expressed an intent to proceed without her lawyer.
3. Whether Liston proved causation and damages where Stewart had the right to discharge counsel and where communication and delay problems existed before Home settled.

## Decision

- The court entered judgment for Home after a bench trial and rejected the plaintiffs’ tortious-interference claim.
- The court found the plaintiffs did not prove the interference was unprivileged or unjustified under Mississippi law.
- The court also found the evidence did not show the type of wrongful purpose or malice required for liability.
- The court treated Stewart’s dissatisfaction and decision to pursue settlement herself—arising in part from difficulty contacting Liston and delays in providing documentation—as breaking the causal chain needed to hold Home liable for the loss of the contingency fee.

## Legal Principles

- Under Mississippi law, tortious interference with contract requires more than knowledge of a contract and conduct that affects it; the plaintiff must prove intentional interference that is wrongful and not justified (often described in terms of lack of privilege or justifiable cause), plus resulting damages.
- A defendant’s legitimate business interest in resolving a claim can supply justification, especially where the claimant requests direct settlement and indicates a desire to proceed without counsel.
- A client may discharge an attorney, and an insurer may rely on the client’s expressed intent to handle the matter personally; without proof of improper purpose, direct settlement in that setting is not necessarily actionable interference.
- Internal company practices (such as a preference not to deal directly with represented claimants) may be evidence about conduct, but they do not by themselves establish the elements of the tort.
- Proof problems on causation and damages can defeat an attorney’s interference claim where the client’s choice to bypass counsel is driven by the attorney-client relationship’s breakdown rather than inducement by the insurer.

## Conclusion

The court held that Home was not liable for tortious interference because, on the trial record, Home’s settlement with Stewart was justified in light of Stewart’s requests and stated intent to proceed without her lawyer, and the plaintiffs failed to prove wrongful, unprivileged interference (including malice) or that Home caused the loss of the contingency fee.


Liston v. Home Insurance Co., 659 F. Supp. 276 (1986)