## Facts

- Top Service Body Shop, Inc. operated an automobile body repair shop in Coos Bay, Oregon.
- After a dispute between Top Service’s owner and Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate adjusters allegedly discouraged claimants from using Top Service and directed them to other body shops.
- Top Service alleged Allstate “steered” customers to preferred shops and made negative statements suggesting Top Service was overpriced, low quality, or uncooperative.
- Top Service also alleged Allstate induced competing body shops to provide discounts or concessions that Top Service did not receive, allegedly violating Oregon price-discrimination statutes and harming Top Service’s competitive position.
- Allstate denied wrongdoing and asserted its conduct was justified by its legitimate financial interest in settling claims economically.
- A jury awarded Top Service compensatory and punitive damages on the interference claim and treble damages on the statutory claim.
- The trial court granted Allstate judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on both claims and, alternatively, granted a new trial; Top Service appealed.

## Issues

1. What must a plaintiff prove to establish intentional interference with economic relations under Oregon law, and did the evidence permit a finding that Allstate interfered by improper means or improper motive?
2. Did the evidence support liability under Oregon price-discrimination statutes, including proof of a statutory violation and causation of compensable injury?
3. Did the trial court properly grant JNOV (and alternatively a new trial) on both claims?

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed JNOV for Allstate on the intentional interference claim.
- The court held Top Service failed to present evidence from which a jury could find interference by improper means or an improper purpose directed at harming Top Service for its own sake.
- The court affirmed JNOV for Allstate on the statutory price-discrimination claim due to insufficient proof of a statutory violation and insufficient proof that any alleged pricing practices caused cognizable injury to Top Service.
- Because the JNOVs were affirmed, the judgment for Allstate stood.

## Legal Principles

- Intentional interference with economic relations requires more than intentional conduct that affects another’s business; the interference must be improper by a measure beyond the interference itself.
- The elements include: (1) a business relationship or expectancy, (2) defendant’s knowledge, (3) intentional interference, (4) improper means or improper purpose, and (5) causation and damages.
- “Improper” interference is shown by independently wrongful conduct (e.g., fraud, misrepresentation, illegality, or other actionable wrongdoing) or by a purpose to harm the plaintiff for its own sake rather than from an honest pursuit of the defendant’s business interests.
- Conduct undertaken to protect one’s own financial interests—such as an insurer attempting to control claim costs by recommending or preferring certain repair shops—is not tortious absent proof of improper means or improper motive.
- Statutory price-discrimination liability requires evidence that the challenged discounts or inducements violate the statute invoked and that the violation caused the plaintiff a compensable injury.

## Conclusion

The court set aside the jury’s awards and held that economic-interference liability in Oregon turns on proof of improper means or improper purpose, not mere customer steering or cost-motivated business preferences, and that the statutory price-discrimination claim also failed for lack of proof of both violation and causation.


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