FILED
JUNE 2, 2015
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
W A State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
IRWIN-YAEGER, INC. d/b/a ) SUMMIT MECHANICAL, a Washington ) No. 32204-1-111 corporation, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) WASHINGTON STATE ) COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT )
17, COMMUNITY COLLEGES OF )
SPOKANE, an administrative agency of )
the State of Washington, )
)
Respondent. )
KORSMO,1. - The Community Colleges of Spokane (CCS) directed that the
winning bidder on a classroom building contract replace the listed plumbing
subcontractor, Irwin-Yaeger d/b/a Summit Mechanical. Summit's suit for tortious.
interference with a business expectancy and defamation was dismissed on summary
judgment. We affinn. No. 32204-1-III Summit Mechanical v. CCS
FACTS
CCS requested bids for a classroom building contract at Spokane Falls Community
College (SFCC). T. W. Clark Construction, LLC (TWC) submitted the low bid. TWC
listed Summit as the plumbing subcontractor on the project.
In part, Section 5.20(B) of the bid contract stated:
Provide names of Subcontractors and use qualified firms: Before submitting the first Application for Payment, Contractor shall furnish in writing to Owner the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all Subcontractors, as well as suppliers providing materials in excess of $2,500. Contractor shall utilize Subcontractors and suppliers which are experienced and qualified, and meet the requirements of the Contract Documents, if any. Contractor shall not utilize any Subcontractor or supplier to whom the Owner has a reasonable objection, and shall obtain Owner's written consent before making any substitutions or addition.
Clerk's Papers (CP) at 49 (emphasis supplied).
CCS had worked with Summit on three prior occasions. Dennis Dunham, the
District Director of Facilities for CCS, was dissatisfied with Summit's past work as well
as its response to complaints about deficiencies in that work. CCS maintained a large file
concerning Summit's work; much of it was devoted to problems with toilets in the Science
Building at Spokane Community College (SCC). CP 1-400. Included in those materials
was a letter from the contractor for the SCC Science Building, Lydig Construction,
acknowledging problems with some of the toilets and directing Summit to make repairs.
CP at 209.
No. 32204-l-II1 Summit Mechanical v. CCS
Upon seeing the bid from TWC, Dunham sought information from Cheryl Groth,
the District's Director of Capital Projects and its former Director of Facilities, as well as
CCS maintenance personnel familiar with Summit's work. Correspondence and emails
among these parties, and then with Enterprise Services, the state agency overseeing
construction projects, are the primary source of Summit's litigation claims. According to
Summit, the most significant exchanges are the following:
(a) "These problems extended from poor quality, code compliance issues, scheduling issues, to warranty response issues"; (b) "the worst problem was that of over-all substandard workmanship, resistance to resolving problems when they arose and generally skirting project specifications and code requirements when-ever [sic] possible"; (c) "Summit ... did not install the toilet carriers per manufacturer's specs or per acceptable construction standards"; (d) "Over the course of two years, I tried to get them to correct their shoddy workmanship, and I found them to be evasive, dishonest, and lacked professional integrity." (e) "Mark [Connolley] also said, that he had heard, that Summit is so upside down that they could not afford to make bond that the general would have to for them."
CP at 41, 53, 54, 57, 58; See Br. of Appellant at 25.
After consulting with the CCS employees, Dunham communicated with Dave
Lohrengel of the Department of Enterprise Services protesting the use of Summit in light
of the history of problems. The low bid from TWC was selected, but TWC was ordered
to replace Summit with the next lowest plumbing contractor. Summit responded with
this litigation.
CCS eventually moved for summary judgment, relying upon its contractual right
to substitute subcontractors in response to the tortious interference claim and that there
No. 32204-1-II1 Summit Mechanical v. CCS
was no publication of the alleged defamatory statements by the in-house discussion
among state employees. The trial court granted the motion, concluding that there was no
evidence that ees used improper means or acted with an improper purpose and that there was no evidence of publication of the allegedly defamatory statements or that ees acted
with malice.
An order was entered dismissing the complaint. Summit then timely appealed to
this court.
ANALYSIS
Summit challenges both bases for the summary judgment ruling, contending that
there are factual questions that require the case to proceed to trial. We address first the
defamation issue before turning to the tortious interference claim. Initially, however, it is
appropriate to state the standards governing review of summary judgment rulings.
This court reviews a summary judgment de novo, performing the same inquiry as
the trial court. Lybbert v. Grant County, 141 Wn.2d 29, 34, I P .3d 1124 (2000). The facts,
and all reasonable inferences to be drawn from them, are viewed in the light most favorable
to the nonmoving party. Id. If there is no genuine issue of material fact, summary
judgment will be granted if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.
"A defendant in a civil action is entitled to summary judgment ifhe can show that there is
an absence or insufficiency of evidence supporting an element that is essential to the
No. 32204-1-III Summit Mechanical v. CCS
plaintiffs claim." Tacoma Auto Mall, Inc. v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., 169 Wn. App. Ill, 118,
279 P.3d 487 (2012).
The moving party bears the initial burden of establishing that it is entitled to
judgment because there are no disputed issues of material fact. Young v. Key Pharm., Inc.,
112 Wn.2d 216, 225, 770 P.2d 182 (1989). If a defendant makes that initial showing, then
the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish there is a genuine issue for the trier of fact. Id.
at 225-26. "A material fact is one that affects the outcome of the litigation." Owen v.
Burlington N. & Santa Fe R.R., 153 Wn.2d 780,789, 108 P.3d 1220 (2005). While
questions of fact typically are left to the trial process, they may be treated as a matter of
law if "reasonable minds could reach but one conclusion" from the facts. Hartley v. State,
103 Wn.2d 768,775,698 P.2d 77 (1985). A party may not rely on speculation or having
its own affidavits accepted at face value. Seven Gables Corp. v. MGM/UA Entm 't Co., 106
Wn.2d 1, 13,721 P.2d 1 (1986). Instead, it must put forth evidence showing the existence
of a triable issue. Id.
Defamation
To establish a defamation claim, a plaintiff must establish four elements: (1) falsity,
(2) an unprivileged communication, (3) defendant's fault, and (4) damages. Mohr v. Grant,
153 Wn.2d 812,822, 108 P.3d 768 (2005). Even a privileged communication, however, can
be abused. In such a case, "a showing of actual malice will defeat a conditional or qualified
privilege." Herron v. Tribune Publ'g Co. Inc., 108 Wn.2d 162, 183,736 P.2d 249 (1987).
No. 32204-l-III Summit Mechanical v. CCS
"Actual malice must be shown by clear and convincing proof of knowledge or reckless
disregard as to the falsity of a statement." Momah v. Bharti, 144 Wn. App. 731, 742, 182
PJd 455 (2008).
Washington recognizes a qualified privilege for the protection of common interest
when:
The publication is for the protection ofthe interest of the publisher; the recipient or a third person; persons sharing a common interest; family relationships; public interest. In connection with the last mentioned type of privilege the publication is privileged only when made to a public officer or a private citizen who is authorized to act. The privilege does not extend to the publication to the entire public.
Owens v. Scott Publ'g Co., 46 Wn.2d 666, 674, 284 P.2d 296 (1955) (internal citations
omitted). "The common interest privilege applies when the declarant and the recipient
have a common interest in the subject matter of the communication." Momah, 144 Wn.
App. at 747. The privilege is generally applicable to partnerships, associations, and
organizations that need to speak freely and openly about subjects of organizational or
pecuniary interest. Id. at 748. Courts have applied the privilege "in cases of limited
publication on issues in common between the publisher and recipients." Id. (citing Gem
Trading Co., Inc. v. Cudahy Corp., 92 Wn.2d 956,958-59,603 P.2d 828 (1979) (former
employee brought defamation action against employer who told vendors that orders placed
by the employee were unauthorized); Ward v. Painters' Local Union, 41 Wn.2d 859, 866,
No. 32204-1-II1 Summit Mechanical v. CCS
252 P.2d 253 (1953) (privilege extended to union members who made written and oral
statements that a member had misappropriated funds while an officer of the union).
The parties dispute both the falsity and publication (privileged communication)
elements. We need not address the falsity claim because we agree with the trial court that
the internal communications among CCS employees and with Enterprise Services was
privileged and there was no showing of actual malice.
The common interest privilege applies here because the CCS employees
communicated about a matter of organizational interest-the identity of a proposed
plumbing subcontractor who wanted to work on the new CCS building at SFCC. The
ensuing communications addressed Summit's past performance on earlier CCS projects in
order to assess whether to work with them on this project and, subsequently, to protest
Summit's involvement when the low bid was awarded. These were all matters of proper
organizational interest. Accordingly, the communication among the CCS employees was
privileged in this case.
Summit argues that the subsequent communication to Enterprise Services was not
privileged and, hence, also supported the defamation claim. Summit contends that because
Enterprise Services is a different governmental entity from CCS, it was outside the
organizational structure, thus precluding a common interest privilege. Again, we disagree.
Although we question Summit's premise that two divisions of state government
constitute separate entities for purposes of publishing and receiving communication, we
No. 32204-I-II1 Summit Mechanical v. CCS
need not address that issue. The analytical question here is whether the employees of
CCS and the employees of Enterprises Services were pursuing a common interest. They
were. The bid contract lists Enterprise Services as the contracting agency for the bid
while CCS was listed as the client agency. CP at 48. The project was the new classroom
building at SFCC. The two agencies were working together on the common project. The
communications involved the project. There was the "common interest in the subject
matter of the communication" necessary to establish the common interest privilege.
Momah, 144 Wn. App. at 747. The trial court did not err in concluding that reasonable
minds could reach only one conclusion under the facts. This was a communication about
a common project and the common interest privilege attached.
The privileged communication thus defeated the defamation claim unless Summit
could establish actual malice behind the communication. Summit did not meet that heavy
burden.
The CCS employees expressed their opinions on Summit's work based on their
previous business dealings with Summit. A third party letter from Lydig Construction
supported the CCS employees' opinions. As a result, reasonable minds could not differ
that the declarants had reasonable grounds for their opinions and belief. A genuine
dispute existed concerning the previous projects, regardless of whether either side was
correct in its view of the situation. Additionally, Summit failed to bring forth evidence
that such statements were made with malice, asserting instead only that the statements
No. 32204-1-II1 Summit Mechanical v. CCS
were prompted by Mr. Dunham's request "needing reasons" to replace Summit as the
subcontractor. The master contract required that CCS give legitimate reasons for
replacing any subcontractor. This does not demonstrate malice, but, rather, an attempt to
follow contract provisions and give sufficient cause.
Summit has not established clear and convincing proof of malice. Accordingly,
the trial court correctly determined that the common interest privilege applied and it was
not defeated by strong evidence of malice. The court properly granted summary
judgment on the defamation cause.
Tortious Interference with a Business Relationship
Summit also contends that the trial court erred in dismissing its tortious
interference action, arguing that material questions of fact exist whether CCS acted by an
improper means and with an improper purpose when it torpedoed Summit's bid. We will
address those two prongs in the order listed.
In order to establish this tort, a plaintiff must satisfY each of five elements: (1) the
existence of a valid contractual relationship or business expectancy, (2) that defendants had
knowledge of, (3) an intentional interference inducing or causing a breach or termination of
the relationship or expectancy, (4) that defendants interfered for an improper purpose or
used improper means, and (5) damage. Elcon Constr., Inc. v. E. Wash. Univ., 174 Wn.2d
157, 168,273 P.3d 965 (2012). At issue in the present case is only the fourth element-
whether CCS interfered for an improper purpose or used improper means.
No. 32204-I-III Summit Mechanical v. CCS
This cause of action distills the heart of the case. Summit believes that CCS
retaliated against it over an old grudge, using the new project as a way to harm Summit's
business. In tum, CCS sees its actions as protecting the public and CCS from substandard
work and service by Summit. With these competing views of the case in mind, we tum to
the alternative means of establishing the fourth element.
Improper Means
The improper means element looks at the method by which a defendant interferes
with plaintiffs contractual relationship. An arbitrary and capricious action may constitute
an improper means of interference. Pleas v. City o/Seattle, 112 Wn.2d 794,805, 774
P.2d 1158 (1989). In contrast, a good faith exercise of one's legal interest is not improper
interference. Tacoma Auto Mall, Inc. v. Nissan N Am., Inc., 169 Wn. App. Ill, 132,279
P.3d 487 (2012).
Summit contends that CCS improperly interfered by violating the terms of the
contract and in relation to Washington's competitive bidding statutes and related public
policy. The contract based claim involves the language of the two paragraphs addressing
subcontractors. In each instance, the provisions require the contractor to use "experienced
and qualified" subcontractors, but could not use any to whom "the Owner has a reasonable
objection." CP at 49, 50.' Summit reads these provisions as requiring any "reasonable
, Section 5.20(B), CP at 49, was recited verbatim near the beginning ofthis opinion.
No. 32204-1-111 Summit Mechanical v. CCS
objection" to be based on the experience and qualifications of the subcontractor. We
disagree.
A fair reading of the contract provisions indicates that while the "experienced and
qualified" language may set a floor for the subcontractors to meet, it does not modify the
owner's right to reasonably object to a subcontractor. The owner's objection right is
preserved in a separate sentence from the bidder's requirement to use qualified
subcontractors. While an objection must be "reasonable," the contract does not limit the
objection solely to the experience and qualifications of the subcontractor.
CCS gave several reasons for its objection to Summit. The objection was backed
by several years of documentation, from employees of CCS as well as outsiders such as
general contractor Lydig Construction, demonstrating problems with Summit's past work
for CCS. The objection was reasonable. CCS was not required to accept Summit merely
because it had the experience and qualifications required by the contact.
CCS did not act by improper means when it exercised its statutory right to object
to Summit participating as a contractor.
Summit also argues that the objection was contrary to the statutes and public
policy of Washington's competitive bidding statutes, specifically RCW 39.30.060. 2 In
2 Summit also makes reference to RCW 39.10.380(2), but admits (Reply Brief at p. 13) that the alternative bidding process ofRCW 39.10 was not used in this case and relies on these statutes merely as an expression of public policy. As this argument was not presented to the trial court, we will not further address it. RAP 2.S(a).
No. 32204-1-III Summit Mechanical v. CCS
general, that statute requires contractors to identifY the subcontractors it is using, RCW
39JO.060(1), and prohibits "bid shopping or bid peddling" by the contractor, RCW
39.30.060(2). A subcontractor can recover damages from the contractor for violating the
provisions ofRCW 39.30.060(2). These statutes do not help Summit's position.
RCW 39.30.060 has been expressly interpreted by this court as protecting the
public purse rather than the interests of a subcontractor. McCandlish Elec., Inc. v. Will
Constr. Co., 107 Wn. App. 85,97,25 PJd 1057 (2001).3 There we concluded that a
contractor is normally required to use the subcontractor listed in the bid and may not bid
shop, with an injunction normally to be the subcontractor's remedy. Id. at 95. A
damages suit against the public was considered a further affront to the public treasury.
Id. at 97. 4 The legislature responded by enacting RCW 39.30.060(2), creating a damages
action for the subcontractor against the contractor rather than against the public. LAWS
OF 2002, ch. 163, § 2.
3 The language of the statute at the time of McCandlish is now found, in large part, in RCW 39JO.060(1). See 107 Wn. App. at 94. RCW 39.30.060(2) was added in response to McCandlish in order to provide a remedy for subcontractors against contractors who bid shop or bid peddle. See LAWS OF 2002, ch. 163, §§ 1,2. 4 While Summit contends that the public purse was harmed by the change in subcontractors, McCandlish still governs that argument. Paying damages would only worsen the harm to the public, contrary to the purpose of the bidding statute. Summit also fails to recognize that its potential poor performance would also damage the public coffers.
No. 32204-1-111 Summit Mechanical v. CCS
Thus, the public policy behind this statute does not aid Summit here. Further,
nothing in the language of the statute prohibits a public entity from exercising contractual
control over subcontractors. CCS reserved that right under the bidding contract and
Summit can point to no statutory authority prohibiting the practice. And, since the statute
only permits a damage action against the contractor (and only in cases of bid shopping),
there is further evidence that the public policy of the bidding statutes does not
contemplate Summit's action here.
CCS did not act by an improper means when it exercised its right under the contract
to object to Summit participating in the project. The trial court correctly determined that
this means of establishing tortious interference was not available in this case.
Improper Purposes
Summit also argues that CCS acted with bad motives when it objected to
Summit's participation. This aspect of the test focuses on the reasons for a defendant's
interference with the contract. We agree with the trial court that Summit failed to
establish that CCS acted with improper purpose.
Summit argues that CCS acted with malice because it was upset with Summit over
prior jobs. It has been noted that "greed, retaliation, or hostility" will support a finding of
improper purpose, but it is the plaintiff s obligation to present evidence of the improper
motive. Elcon, 174 Wn.2d at 169. Conclusory statements are insufficient. Id.
Exercising a legal interest in good faith is not an improper interference. Schmerer v.
No. 32204-1-111 Summit Mechanical v. CCS
Darcy, 80 Wn. App. 499,506,910 P.2d 498 (1996) (citing RESTATEMENT (SECONO) OF
TORTS § 773 (1977)).
Summit simply does not have the evidence to support its theory of the case that
CCS acted with malice. Malice is not established merely because CCS did not want to
work with Summit any longer. This was a logical business decision supported by several
years of extensive documentation from both within and without CCS. Even if CCS was
incorrect to blame Summit, its action in exercising its contractual right under these
circumstances would establish no more than judgment error. There is no evidence of evil
motive or a desire to harm Summit.
The trial court correctly concluded that no evidence supported the improper
purpose element. Accordingly, summary judgment on the tortious interference claim was
properly granted.
Affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW
2.06.040.
WE CONCUR:
\ s· 14