Ashley N. Landrum (N. Palm Beach, FL)(D&O) obtained a dismissal with prejudice of all claims asserted against two Board Member Defendants. The Plaintiff, a General and Roofing Contractor, filed a lawsuit against two Board Members of a Homeowners Association, claiming that the Board Members tortiously interfered with its re-roofing contract with the Homeowners Association, campaigned to get on the Board by promising to get the re-roofing contract cancelled, and conspired to cancel the re-roofing contract by misrepresenting facts and information to owners and other Board Members, ultimately leading to the Association terminating the contract. The Plaintiff sought substantial damages, including lost profits, incurred expenses, loss of the value of the agreement with the Homeowners Association, and loss of business opportunities.
The Board Member Defendants moved to dismiss the initial Complaint with prejudice based on pleading deficiencies and statutory immunity pursuant to § 617.0834. The Court initially dismissed the Complaint with prejudice but later granted a rehearing and allowed leave to amend. The Plaintiff submitted an Amended Complaint, which the Defendants again moved to dismiss with prejudice. The Defendants sought dismissal with prejudice based on immunity under Florida Statute § 617.0834 and the failure of the Plaintiff to allege facts demonstrating that any interference was unjustified, nor were they strangers to the contract. In its detailed Order Granting the Motion to Dismiss, the Court found that the Defendants are not strangers to the contract and did not derive an improper benefit from termination of the contract and therefore 617.0834 immunity applies. A desire to not pay a special assessment is not self-dealing and does not rise to the level or bad faith and/or malicious purpose that avoids immunity under § 617.0834 provided to Members of a Homeowners Association’s Board of Directors.