ÿWPC• 9# .UN9 %‡ 0 cU <ðw@,4l€— 0JŸ 0Té 0^= 0h› 0r 0|u 0†ñ 0w 1u 0d| Bà 0@ý D3= 0§p 0D U>[ B)™ DC AQ ÆV 0D 0D` D/¤ BÓ AMð U*=]g¼Ä^€Þô>v~DvÓ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(;1˜$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XcXXXÔ-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman NOUPEQTRESTUUîVÓ€bäzz!x3|xb2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò'ÿÿdxd(W(3P¿$¤¤Ý ƒ1˜!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€Xt/XXXÔÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd* (Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial SÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€0ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€0XÔÌÌò òMayÏ22,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€0ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ²Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€MK€originally€entered€into€the€contract€with€Luther€Terrace,€Inc.€andÏLutheran€Social€Services€of€Tennessee,€Inc.,€but€subsequent€to€the€contractÏdate,€LSSM€assumed€all€of€the€ownerððs€rights€and€obligations€under€theÏcontract.€€Ì TÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€FB&D€is€a€Delaware€limited€partnership€with€its€principal€place€ofÏbusiness€in€Memphis,€Tennessee.€€Its€general€partner€is€Fogelman€Properties,ÏInc.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€At€the€time€of€this€appeal,€the€chancery€court€litigation€was€stillÏpending.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€record€is€unclear€as€to€whom€Pickering€published€this€report,Ïhowever,€to€simplify€proof€at€trial,€MK€did€not€rely€on€any€communicationsÏother€than€the€original€Report€except€to€the€extent€that€other€communicationsÏrepublished€the€text€of€the€original€Report.€€Consequently,€those€documents€areÏnot€relevant€to€this€appeal.Ì 4Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€We€note€that€the€verdict€in€this€case€is€a€joint€verdict,€which€does€notÏcomply€with€T.C.A.€ðð€25„1„104€(1980)€requiring€that€the€verdict€stateÏseparately€the€amount€awarded€to€each€plaintiff.€€From€our€review€of€theÏrecord,€it€appears€that€this€requirement€has€been€waived.€€ò òòòSee€PridemarkÏCustom€Plating€v.€Upjohn€Co.ó óóó,€702€S.W.2d€566,€574€(Tenn.€App.€1985).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ÜXXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€*ÙßR€/1(A1-j|šB` à. `€€@ÿRßà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌà àà à€€€€______________________________________________ÌÌò òJOSEPH€F.€MYERS,€andÌCARL€D.€KLIMEK€d/b/aÌMK€ASSOCIATES,€ó óÌÌà àPlaintiffs„Appellants,ÌÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.€02A01„9605„CV„00124Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àShelby€law€No.€45135€T.D.ÌÌò òPICKERING€FIRM,€INCORPORATED,€ó óÌÌà àDefendant„Appellee.Ì____________________________________________________________________________ÌÌà@ àFROM€THE€SHELBY€COUNTY€CIRCUIT€COURTÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€ROBERT€A.€LANIER,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àRichard€M.€Carter€and€Scott€T.€BeallÌà@ àMartin,€Tate,€Morrow€&€Marston,€P.C.,€of€MemphisÌà@ àFor€Plaintiffs„AppellantsÌÌà@ àJerry€O.€Potter€and€William€B.€Walk,€Jr.Ìà@ àThe€Hardison€Law€Firm,€P.C.Ìà@ àFor€Defendant„Appelleeà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òòòAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌó óóóà@ àOpinion€filed:ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òà àW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEÌÌHEWITT€P.€TOMLIN,€JR.,€SENIOR€JUDGEó óÌ›Ñ7€, XXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÓÓà àThis€appeal€involves€a€suit€for€libel€and€for€procurement€of€breach€ofÏcontract.€Ìà@ àòòPLEADINGSóóÌà à€The€first€amended€complaint€filed€in€the€circuit€court€by€the€plaintiffs,ÏJoseph€F.€Myers€and€Carl€D.€Klimek€d/b/a€M€K€Associates€(MK),€against€theÏdefendant,€Pickering€Firm,€Incorporated€(Pickering),€alleges,€in€substance,€thatÏin€July€1985€MK€had€a€contract€with€Lutheran€Social€Services€of€Memphis,€Inc.Ï(LSSM)× ƒ2 ××  ×€to€perform€architectural€services€in€connection€with€the€design€andÏconstruction€of€a€five„story€residential€home€for€the€elderly€that€was€part€ofÍLutheran€Village€and€was€referred€to€in€the€complaint€as€Project€A.€ÏSubsequently,€in€July€1988,€MK€entered€into€another€contract€with€LSSM€toÏperform€architectural€services€in€connection€with€the€design€and€constructionÏof€twenty„five€townhouse€units,€which€were€also€to€be€a€part€of€Lutheran€VillageÏand€were€described€in€the€complaint€as€Project€B.€€In€May€of€1989,€LSSMÏcontracted€with€Fogelman/Byrnes€and€Doggett€(FB&D)× ƒ3 ××  ×€as€contractors€for€theÏconstruction€of€both€projects.€€During€the€course€of€construction,€MK€notedÏdefects€in€the€work€performed€by€the€contractor€that€were€not€timely€cured.€ÏAs€a€result€of€FB&Dððs€failure€to€complete€the€work,€MK€refused€to€certify€drawÏrequests€submitted€by€FB&D€and€recommended€that€LSSM€have€the€workÏcorrected€by€another€contractor.€€The€complaint€alleges€that€Project€A€neverÏreached€a€stage€of€completion€at€which€it€could€be€certified€as€substantiallyÏcomplete€as€described€in€the€contract€and€that€Project€B€never€reached€the€levelÏof€completion€for€a€final€inspection.€€Ìà àMK€avers€in€its€complaint€that,€in€February€1991,€FB&D€filed€suit€in€theÏChancery€Court€of€Shelby€County€against€LSSM,€MK,€and€Myers€and€Klimek,Ïindividually,€as€a€result€of€MKððs€refusal€to€certify€draw€requests.€€MKððsÍcomplaint€further€avers€that€after€the€FB&D€suit€was€filed,€and€on€or€aboutÏMarch€22,€1991,€LSSM€entered€into€a€contract€with€Pickering€for€Pickering€toÏperform€independent€on„site€documentary€review€of€both€projects€and€to€reportÏits€findings€as€to€the€quality€and€completeness€of€the€construction€documentsÏand€the€status€of€the€construction€projects.€€MKððs€complaint€also€alleges€thatÏPickering€issued€a€report€to€LSSM€dated€April€15,€1991€that€contained€manyÏfalse€and€defamatory€statements€about€MKððs€work€as€the€architect€on€the€twoÏprojects,€and€notwithstanding€notification€that€the€report€was€false€andÏerroneous,€Pickering€failed€and€refused€to€correct€the€statements€therein.€€TheÏcomplaint€further€alleges€that€in€late€April€or€early€May€1991,€PickeringÏcontracted€with€LSSM€for€Pickering€to€be€in€effect€the€project€architect€on€theÏtwo€projects.€€The€complaint€alleges€that€Pickering€acted€willfully,€intentionally,Ïmaliciously,€and€recklessly€when€it€published€and€republished€the€report€withoutÏcorrection€and€that€Pickering€maliciously€procured€the€breach€of€MKððs€twoÏcontracts€with€LSSM.€€The€complaint€seeks€both€compensatory€and€punitiveÏdamages€for€the€libel€and€also€seeks€recovery€both€under€the€common€law€andÏby€virtue€of€T.C.A.€ðð€47„50„109€(1995)€for€the€procurement€of€the€breach€of€theÏcontracts.Ìà àPickeringððs€answer€denies€the€material€allegations€of€the€complaint€andÍjoins€issue€thereon€and€affirmatively€avers€that€its€report€was€privileged€becauseÏthe€firm€was€hired€as€an€expert€in€anticipation€of€the€chancery€court€litigationÏand€the€report€was€issued€in€furtherance€of€that€proceeding.€€Pickering€deniesÏthat€there€was€publication€of€the€report€and€further€denies€that€there€was€aÏbreach€of€any€contracts€between€LSSM€and€MK€or€that€Pickering€was€in€anyÏway€responsible€for€inducing€any€breach€of€such€contracts.Ìà àPrior€to€trial,€the€trial€court€granted€a€partial€summary€judgment€toÏPickering€and€ruled€that€the€April€15€report€was€absolutely€privileged€in€itsÏpublication€to€LSSM,€members€of€the€LSSM€board,€representatives€of€LutheranÏChurch€Extension€Fund,€Inc.€(LSSMððs€lender),€Jim€Carson€(special€master€in€theÏchancery€court),€FB&D,€and€United€States€Fidelity€&€Guaranty€Company€(theÏbonding€company).€€The€court€did€not€grant€summary€judgment€as€to€theÏpublication€to€Omega€Contractors,€Inc.€(Omega),€the€replacement€contractor,ÏOmegaððs€subcontractors,€Thompson„White€Associates€(Thompson„White),€theÏmarketing€agent€for€LSSM,€and€T„W€Concepts,€Inc.,€the€construction€manager.Ìà àAfter€a€five„week€jury€trial,€the€case€was€submitted€to€the€jury€as€to€theÏissues€of€the€alleged€libel€by€publication€of€the€report€to€Omega,€Thompson„White,€and€T„W€Concepts€and€as€to€the€issue€of€whether€Pickering€procured€orÏinduced€the€breach€of€MKððs€contracts€with€LSSM.€€In€the€libel€action,€the€juryÍreturned€a€verdict€for€MK€in€the€amount€of€$600,000.00€in€compensatoryÏdamages€and€$100,000.00€in€punitive€damages.€€In€the€procurement€orÏinducement€of€breach€of€contract€actions,€the€jury€awarded€MK€$750,000.00€asÏcompensatory€damages,€and€under€T.C.A.€ðð€47„50„109,€the€damages€wereÏtrebled.Ìà àAs€a€result€of€post„trial€motions,€Pickering€was€granted€a€judgmentÏnotwithstanding€the€verdict€on€the€actions€for€procurement€of€breach€ofÏcontract.Ìà@ àòòISSUESóóÌ€Both€MK€and€Pickering€have€appealed.€€MK€presents€the€following€issues€forÏreview:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à1.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€grantedÏPickeringððs€Motion€for€Judgment€Notwithstanding€theÏVerdict€on€the€claim€of€tortious€interference€withÏcontract€that€went€beyond€Pickeringððs€use€of€falseÏstatements€in€Pickeringððs€April€15,€1991€InspectionÏReport€of€Findings.€ÌÌà8 àà8 à2.€€Whether€the€trial€court€on€summary€judgment€andÏon€judgment€notwithstanding€the€verdict€erred€inÏexpanding€Tennesseeððs€ð ðwitness€privilegeðð€toÏimmunize€the€non„litigation€use€of€the€unsigned,Ïunsealed,€unsworn€Report€that€was€published€byÏPickering€only€in€its€corporate€capacity,€whichÏcontained€false€and€malicious€statements€designed€toÏinduce€LSSM€to€breach€its€contracts€with€MK€andÏwas€thereafter€used€in€the€construction€process.ÌÌà8 àà8 à3.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€its€February€9,Ï1995€Order€On€Pending€Motions€when€it€found€thatÏMK€had€no€existing€binding€contracts€with€whichÏPickering€intentionally€interfered.€€ÌÌPickering€presents€the€following€additional€issues€for€our€review:ÌÌà8 àà8 à1.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€grantingÏPickeringððs€Motion€for€Directed€Verdict€on€the€libelÏclaims€that€were€not€excluded€by€the€previous€rulingÏon€Pickeringððs€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment.ÌÌà8 àà8 à2.€€Whether€the€trial€court€committed€error€in€notÏruling€that€the€verdict€was€contrary€to€the€weight€ofÏthe€evidence€in€regard€to€the€damages€that€wereÏawarded.ÌÌà8 àà8 à3.€€Whether€the€court€erred€in€not€defining€theÏcorrect€burden€of€proof€to€the€jury€in€regard€to€theÏstatutory€procurement€of€breach€of€contract€claim€ofÏMK.ÌÌà@ àòòFACTSóóÌÌÓÓà àOn€July€2,€1985,€LSSM,€a€Tennessee€not„for„profit€corporation,€enteredÏinto€a€written€contract€with€MK€for€architectural€services€in€connection€withÏthe€design€and€construction€of€a€five€story,€residential€home€for€the€elderlyÏ(Project€A)€that€was€to€be€part€of€the€Lutheran€Village€Project.€€On€July€27,Ï1988,€LSSM€entered€into€a€second€written€contract€with€MK€for€architecturalÏservices€in€connection€with€the€design€and€construction€of€twenty„fiveÏtownhouse€units€for€the€elderly€(Project€B).€€Both€of€MKððs€contracts€with€LSSMÍwere€standard€American€Institute€of€Architects€architectural€services€contracts.€ÏOn€May€15,€1989,€LSSM€chose€FB&D€as€the€general€contractor€on€bothÏprojects.€€Construction€of€Projects€A€and€B€began€in€August€of€1989.€€In€AugustÏor€September€of€1990,€LSSM€contracted€with€Thompson„White€to€market€andÏsell€the€units€in€both€projects.€€Problems€arose€during€the€construction,€and€inÏJanuary€1991,€MK€refused€to€certify€a€draw€request€submitted€by€FB&D.€€LSSMÏcontacted€Omega€as€a€neutral€party€to€evaluate€the€projects€and€to€determineÏthe€quality€of€the€construction.Ìà àOn€February€18,€1991,€FB&D€filed€suit€in€the€chancery€court€againstÏLSSM,€MK,€and€Myers€and€Klimek€individually.€€Because€the€chancery€courtÏlawsuit€is€relevant€to€the€issues€raised€in€this€appeal,€we€will€examine€theÏpleadings€in€that€case.× ƒ4 ××  ×€In€its€complaint,€FB&D€alleges,€òòinter€aliaóó,€that€LSSMÏbreached€its€contract€with€FB&D€by€not€paying€for€all€the€work€performed€andÏthat€MK€interfered€with€the€contract€between€FB&D€and€LSSM€by€inducingÏLSSMððs€breach.€€The€complaint€also€alleges€that€MK€was€guilty€of€negligentÏsupervision€with€respect€to€the€construction€process:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€Defendants,€MK€Associates,€Carl€D.€Klimek,Ïindividually,€and€Joseph€Myers,€individually,€breachedÏtheir€duty€to€Plaintiff€by€failing€to€use€ordinary€careÍin€the€preparation€of€the€plans€and€specifications,Ïsupervision,€inspection,€administration,€coordinationÏand€in€the€performance€of€their€contractual€duties.€ÏSaid€breaches€by€Defendants€include,€withoutÏlimitation:€not€allowing€Plaintiff€to€perform€workÏunder€the€contract€as€it€had€scheduled,€causingÏPlaintiff€to€perform€an€abnormal€amount€of€work€onÏthe€project;€repeated€failures€to€give€proper€and€timelyÏdirections€to€Plaintiff;€failure€to€design€the€Project€inÏaccordance€with€applicable€codes,€laws€andÏregulations;€failure€to€provide€adequate€and€timely€jobÏsite€supervision;€failure€to€properly€evaluate€the€workÏaccomplished€by€Plaintiff;€failure€to€certify€paymentÏrequests;€failure€to€specifically€identify€problemsÏperceived€in€the€work€and€issue€punch€lists€in€a€timelyÏand€specific€manner€so€that€corrections€could€beÏaccomplished€economically.€ÌÌÓÓà àOn€March€22,€1991,€LSSM€entered€into€a€contract€with€Pickering,€aÏmulti„disciplined€engineering€and€architectural€firm,€to€perform€an€independent,Ïon„site,€documented€review€of€various€aspects€of€Projects€A€and€B€and€toÏdetermine€the€priority€of€items€needed€to€be€completed€for€a€certificate€ofÏoccupancy.€€After€completing€its€inspection,€Pickering€published€a€report€onÏApril€15,€1991,€titled€ð ðInspection€Report€of€Findings€for€Lutheran€SocialÏServices€of€Memphis,€Inc.€of€Project€A:€Lutheran€Village€Mid„Rise€and€ProjectÏB:€Townhousesðð€(Report).€€Pickering€delivered€copies€of€the€Report€to€LSSM,ÏThompson„White,€and€Omega.€€On€May€1,€1991,€MK€wrote€a€letter€to€LSSMÏand€sent€a€copy€of€the€letter€to€Pickering€asserting€that€the€Report€containedÍerrors€and€expressing€concerns€about€the€impact€the€Report€would€have€onÏMKððs€professional€reputation.€€Pickering€did€not€respond€to€this€letter€and€didÏnot€correct€or€retract€any€statements€made€in€the€Report.€€Pickering€publishedÏanother€report,€dated€July€16,€1991,€titled€ð ðPunch€List€Items€Supplement€ToÏInspection€Report€Of€Findings€For€Lutheran€Social€Services€Of€Memphis,€Inc.ðð€ÏJ.€Martin€Regan,€Jr.,€LSSMððs€attorney,€wrote€a€letter€dated€October€8,€1991€toÏOmega€and€Pickering€requesting€their€further€assistance€as€expert€witnesses€inÏpreparing€additional€documents€to€aid€LSSM€in€the€chancery€court€litigation.€ÏPickering€responded€by€a€letter€and€attachment€dated€October€11,€1991.€ÏPickering€also€republished€the€entire€text€of€the€original€Report€in€an€ð ðInterimÏReport€for€Lutheran€Social€Services€of€Memphis,€Inc.ðð€dated€November€25,Ï1991.× ƒ5 ××  ×€€Ìà àAfter€Pickering€published€the€original€Report,€MKððs€relationship€withÏLSSM€deteriorated.€€James€Stanton€Hobbs,€Pickeringððs€Project€Manager,€beganÏnegotiating€with€LSSM€for€architectural€services€in€mid„to„late€April€1991.€€OnÏApril€30,€1991,€Pickering€sent€LSSM€a€contract€for€architectural€services.€€OnÍMay€16,€1991,€LSSM€filed€its€answer€in€the€chancery€court€lawsuit€and€a€cross„complaint€against€MK€alleging€that€MK€breached€its€contract€with€LSSM,Ïnegligently€prepared€plans€and€specifications,€and€did€not€provide€properÏcontract€administration.€€On€May€28,€1991,€Pickering€and€LSSM€executed€aÏsecond€written€contract,€which€provided€that€Pickering€would€performÏð ðcontract€administrationðð€on€Projects€A€and€B.€€On€July€24,€1991,€MKÏsubmitted€a€ð ðProposal€For€Servicesðð€to€LSSM€to€ð ðprovide€contractÏadministration€basic€services€for€the€completion€of€Lutheran€Village€based€on€aÏconstruction€period€of€120€days€for€$40,800.00.ðð€€LSSM€did€not€accept€MKððsÏproposal.€€On€July€31,€1991,€LSSM€filed€its€answers€to€interrogatoriesÏpropounded€by€FB&D€in€the€chancery€court€lawsuit€and€identified€Pickering€asÏan€expert€witness€whose€representatives€would€be€called€at€that€trial.€€OnÏAugust€28,€1991,€LSSM€sent€MK€a€letter€giving€seven€days€written€notice€ofÏtermination€of€the€contracts€between€the€parties.€€The€letter€states:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThis€letter€is€to€serve€as€seven€days€written€notice€ofÏthe€termination€of€the€Agreements€between€LutheranÏSocial€Services€of€Memphis,€Inc.€and€MK€AssociatesÏArchitects/Planners€in€connection€with€the€projectsÏcommonly€known€as€the€25€Townhouse€Units€forÏLutheran€Village€and€the€Atrium€Building€at€ScheiblerÏRoad€and€New€Covington€Pike,€Memphis,€Tennessee.€ÏThis€notice€is€given€pursuant€to€the€termination€ofÏagreement€provisions€of€the€contracts€and€is€basedÏupon€your€failure€to€substantially€perform€inÍaccordance€with€the€terms€of€the€contracts.ÌÌÓÓà àOn€or€about€October€14,€1991,€MK,€Myers,€and€Klimek€filed€a€cross„action€in€the€chancery€suit€against€LSSM,€alleging€breach€of€contract,€libel€andÏslander,€and€negligence.€€In€December€of€1991,€LSSM€filed€an€answer€to€MKððsÏcross„action€in€the€chancery€court€stating,€òòinter€aliaóó,€the€following:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àLSSM€states€that€any€actions€which€it€took€inÏterminating€the€Architects€and€retaining€the€servicesÏof€new€Architects€were€taken€in€order€to€mitigate€itsÏdamages€and€to€bring€the€project€to€completion€inÏaccordance€with€applicable€codes,€laws€and€€industryÏstandards€and€as€a€consequence€of€the€breach€by€theÏArchitects€by€their€contracts€as€set€forth€in€LSSMððsÏcross„claim.ÌÌà@ àòòCONSIDERATION€OF€ISSUESóóÌÌÓÓà àWe€will€consider€MKððs€first€two€issues€raised€in€this€appeal€of€the€circuitÏcourt€lawsuit€together:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à1.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€grantedÏPickeringððs€Motion€for€Judgment€Notwithstanding€theÏVerdict€on€the€claim€of€tortious€interference€œwithÏcontract€that›€went€beyond€Pickeringððs€use€of€falseÏstatements€in€Pickeringððs€April€15,€1991€InspectionÏReport€of€Findings.€ÌÌà8 àà8 à2.€€Whether€the€trial€court€on€summary€judgment€andÏon€judgment€notwithstanding€the€verdict€erred€inÏexpanding€Tennesseeððs€ð ðwitness€privilegeðð€toÏimmunize€the€nonlitigation€use€of€the€unsigned,Ïunsealed,€unsworn€Report€that€was€published€byÏPickering€only€in€its€corporate€capacity,€whichÍcontained€false€and€malicious€statements€designed€toÏinduce€LSSM€to€breach€its€contracts€with€MK€andÏwas€thereafter€used€in€the€construction€process.ÌÌÓÓà àThe€trial€courtððs€order€granting€Pickering€a€judgment€notwithstanding€theÏverdict€is€premised€on€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€Pickeringððs€statements€inÏthe€Report€were€absolutely€privileged€as€communicated€to€LSSM,€thereforeÏbarring€MKððs€claims€for€inducement€to€breach€of€contract,€and€also€on€theÏcourtððs€finding€that€there€were€no€existing€binding€contracts€between€LSSM€andÏMK.€€Ìà àMK€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€the€judgmentÏnotwithstanding€the€verdict€for€the€following€reasons:€(1)€there€was€no€absoluteÏprivilege€afforded€the€publication;€(2)€if€there€were€such€a€privilege,€PickeringÏtook€actions€other€than€the€statements€in€the€Report€that€procured€or€inducedÏthe€breach€of€the€contract;€and€(3)€there€were€in€existence€two€viable€andÏbinding€contracts€between€LSSM€and€MK€that€were€subject€to€breach.Ìà àThe€duty€of€a€trial€or€appellate€judge€in€dealing€with€a€judgmentÏnotwithstanding€a€verdict€is€well€established€in€our€jurisprudence:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€A€post„trial€motion€for€the€entry€of€judgment€inÏaccordance€with€a€motion€for€a€directed€verdict€madeÏduring€the€trial€must€be€gauged€by€the€usual€rulesÏrelating€to€directed€verdicts.€€€Those€rules€require€thatÏthe€trial€judge,€and€the€appellate€courts,€take€theÏstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€favor€ofÍthe€opponent€of€the€motion,€allow€all€reasonableÏinferences€in€his€or€her€favor,€discard€allÏcountervailing€evidence,€and€deny€the€motion€whereÏthere€is€any€doubt€as€to€the€conclusions€to€be€drawnÏfrom€the€whole€evidence.€€€A€verdict€should€not€beÏdirected€during,€or€after,€trial€except€where€aÏreasonable€mind€could€draw€but€one€conclusion.€Ì€Ìòòò òÓÓHolmes€v.€Wilsonó óóó,€551€S.W.2d€682,€685€(Tenn.€1977)€(citations€omitted).€€Ìà àMKððs€actions€against€Pickering€for€inducement€to€breach€a€contract€areÏbased€on€the€common€law€and€on€T.C.A.€ðð€47„50„109€(1995).€€SectionÏ47„50„109€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àò ò47„50„109.€€Procurement€of€breach€of€contractsÏunlawful€ð"ð€Damages.ð"ð€ó óIt€is€unlawful€for€anyÏperson,€by€inducement,€persuasion,€misrepresentation,Ïor€other€means,€to€induce€or€procure€the€breach€orÏviolation,€refusal€or€failure€to€perform€any€lawfulÏcontract€by€any€party€thereto;€€and,€in€every€caseÏwhere€a€breach€or€violation€of€such€contract€is€soÏprocured,€the€person€so€procuring€or€inducing€theÏsame€shall€be€liable€in€treble€the€amount€of€damagesÏresulting€from€or€incident€to€the€breach€of€theÏcontract.€€The€party€injured€by€such€breach€may€bringÏsuit€for€the€breach€and€for€such€damages.ÌÓÓÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€statute€is€declaratory€of€the€common€law€except€as€to€the€amount€ofÏdamages€that€may€be€recovered€against€a€wrongdoer.òòò ò€€€New€Life€Corp.€ofÏAmerica€v.€Thomas€Nelson,€Inc.ó óóó,€932€S.W.2d€921,€926€(Tenn.€App.€1996)Ï(citing€òòò òEmmco€Ins.€Co.€v.€Beacon€Mut.€Indem.€Co.ó óóó,€204€Tenn.€540,€551,€322ÏS.W.2d€226,€231€(1959)).€€à àIn€òòò òEmmco€Insurance€Co.€v.€Beacon€MutualÍIndemnity€Co.ó óóó,€204€Tenn.€540,€322€S.W.2d€226€(1959),€our€Supreme€CourtÏstated:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€Code€Section€relied€on€(47„1706,€T.C.A.€[now€ÏT.C.A.€ðð€47„50„109]€)€and€made€the€basis€of€thisÏaction€€.€.€.€contemplates€the€improper€inducement,Ïand€we€might€add€the€unlawful€conduct,€of€the€allegedÏwrongdoer€whereby€a€contract€is€broken.€€€The€statuteÏcontemplates€the€imposition€of€a€severe€penalty,€ð ðandÏshould€not€be€enforced€except€upon€a€clear€showing.ðð€Ïòòò òLichter€v.€Fulcheró óóó,€22€Tenn.€App.€670,€125€S.W.2dÏ501,€508.ÌÓÓÓÓÌÓÓò òòòEmmco€Ins.€Co.ó óóó,€204€Tenn.€at€549„50,€322€S.W.2d€at€230„31.Ìà àThe€elements€of€a€cause€of€action€for€procurement€of€the€breach€of€aÏcontract€are:€€1)€€there€must€be€a€legal€contract;€2)€€the€wrongdoer€must€haveÏknowledge€of€the€existence€of€the€contract;€3)€€there€must€be€an€intention€toÏinduce€its€breach;€4)€€the€wrongdoer€must€have€acted€maliciously;€5)€€thereÏmust€be€a€breach€of€the€contract;€€6)€€the€act€complained€of€must€be€theÏproximate€cause€of€the€breach€of€the€contract;€€and,€7)€€there€must€have€beenÏdamages€resulting€from€the€breach€of€the€contract.€€ò òòòNew€Life€Corp.ó óóó,€932€S.W.2dÏat€926€(citing€òòò òCampbell€v.€Matlockó óóó,€749€S.W.2d€748,€751€(Tenn.€App.€1987);€Ïòòò òDynamic€Motel€Management,€Inc.€v.€Erwinó óóó,€528€S.W.2d€819,€822€(Tenn.€App.Ï1975)).Ìà àConsidering€the€basis€of€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€the€judgmentÍnotwithstanding€the€verdict€and€keeping€the€above€rules€in€mind,€we€mustÏdetermine€whether€the€statements€in€the€Report€that€Pickering€communicatedÏto€LSSM€were€privileged,€and€if€so,€whether€the€privilege€should€apply€to€a€causeÏof€action€for€procurement€of€a€breach€of€the€contract.€€Our€inquiry,€under€theÏabove€rules,€is€premised€on€acceptance€of€the€fact€that€defamatory€statementsÏwere€made€by€Pickering€in€the€Report€and€communicated€to€LSSM.€€Ìà àTennessee€has€long€recognized€that€statements€made€in€the€course€ofÏjudicial€proceedings€are€absolutely€privileged.€€ò òòòSee,€e.g.ó óóó,òòò ò€Lea€v.€Whiteó óóó,€36€Tenn.Ï(4€Sneed)€111,€114€(1856)€(holding€that€statements€made€in€a€return€to€a€writÏof€òòò òhabeas€corpusó óóó€were€absolutely€privileged€so€as€to€bar€a€cause€of€action€forÏlibel).€€This€absolute€privilege€also€applies€to€statements€made€by€witnesses€inÏthe€course€of€judicial€proceedings.€€ò òòòSee,€e.g.ó óóó,€ò òòòShadden€v.€McElweeó óóó,€86€Tenn.€(2ÏPick.)€146,€5€S.W.€602€(1887)€(asserting€that€a€witness€is€absolutely€privilegedÏas€to€all€matters€relevant€to€the€issues€in€the€case).€Ìà àIn€ò òòòJones€v.€Triceóóó ó,€210€Tenn.€535,€360€S.W.2d€48€(Tenn.€1962),€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court€discussed€the€absolute€privilege€applicable€to€judicialÏproceedings.€€In€that€case,€Jones€had€attended€a€trial€in€which€Trice€was€aÏdefendant€as€executrix€of€an€estate.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€49.€€After€a€jury€verdict€againstÏTrice,€she€moved€for€a€new€trial€on€the€ground,€òòinter€alia,€óóthat€Jones€improperlyÍinfluenced€the€jury€in€her€case.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€When€Jones€sued€Trice€for€libel€based€onÏthe€allegations€in€her€motion€for€a€new€trial,€Trice€demurred€on€the€ground€thatÏthe€statements€were€absolutely€privileged€because€they€were€made€in€the€courseÏof€a€judicial€proceeding.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€50.€€Ìà àOn€appeal€of€the€trial€courtððs€order€sustaining€the€demurrer,€the€CourtÏstated:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àThe€general€rule€is€that€statements€made€in€theÏcourse€of€judicial€proceedings€which€are€relevant€andÏpertinent€to€the€issues€are€absolutely€privileged,€andÏtherefore€cannot€be€used€as€a€basis€for€a€libel€actionÏfor€damages.€€This€rule€holds€true€even€though€suchÏstatements€are€false,€known€to€be€false€or€evenÏmalicious.€€Ìò òòòÓÓId.ó óóó€(citations€omitted).€€The€Court€further€set€forth€the€view€contained€in€theÏòòò òRestatement€of€Tortsóó:ÌÓÓó óà8 àà8 àð ðA€party€to€a€private€litigation€.€.€.€is€absolutelyÏprivileged€to€publish€false€and€defamatory€matter€ofÏanother€in€òòcommunications€preliminary€to€a€proposedÏjudicial€proceedingóó,€or€in€the€institution€of€or€duringÏthe€course€and€as€a€part€of€a€judicial€proceeding€inÏwhich€he€participates,€if€the€matter€had€some€relationÏthereto.ðð€€ÌÌò òòòÓÓId.ó óóó€at€51€(quoting€ò òòòRestatement€of€Tortsó óóó€ðð€587)(emphasis€added).€€From€theseÏand€other€authorities,€the€Court€reasoned€that€ð ða€statement€by€a€judge,€witness,Ïcounsel,€or€party,€to€be€absolutely€privileged,€must€meet€two€conditions,€viz:€(1)ÏIt€must€be€in€the€course€of€a€judicial€proceeding,€and€(2)€it€must€be€pertinentÍor€relevant€to€the€issue€involved€in€said€judicial€proceeding.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€52.€€TheÏCourt€noted€that€pertinency€and€relevance€are€questions€of€law.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€53Ï(citing€33€ò òòòAm.€Jur.€ó óóóðð€150,€at€146).€€Concluding€that€Triceððs€statements€metÏthese€requirements€and€were€absolutely€privileged,€the€Court€held€that€the€trialÏcourt€correctly€sustained€the€demurrer.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€54„55.Ìà àAlthough€there€are€no€cases€in€Tennessee€directly€on€point,€PickeringÏrelies€on€cases€from€other€jurisdictions€in€support€of€its€contention€that€anÏabsolute€privilege€applies€to€reports€made€by€a€potential€witness€inÏcontemplation€of€litigation.€€In€ò òòòWestern€Technologies,€Inc.€v.€Sverdrup€&€Parcel,ÏInc.ó óóó,€739€P.2d€1318€(Ariz.€Ct.€App€1986),€the€Arizona€Board€of€RegentsÏ(Board)€retained€Western€Technologies,€Inc.€(Western),€an€engineering€firm,€toÏperform€testing€for€a€proposed€expansion€of€a€stadium.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€1319.€€WesternÏperformed€the€testing,€and€the€expansion€was€completed€in€the€late€1970s.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€ÏShortly€thereafter,€cracks€developed€in€the€stadium.€€ò òòòId.€€óóó óThe€Board€retainedÏSverdrup€&€Parcel,€Inc.€(Sverdrup),€an€engineering€firm,€to€investigate€the€causeÏof€the€cracks.€€ò òòòId.€€óóó óSverdrup€prepared€reports€that€blamed€Western€for€theÏstructural€defects.€€ò òòòId.€€óóó óThe€Board€sued€a€number€of€parties,€including€Western,Ïto€recover€for€the€expense€of€repairing€the€stadium.€€ò òòòId.€€óóó óAfter€reaching€aÏsettlement€with€the€Board,€Western€brought€suit€against€Sverdrup€for,€òòinter€alia,óóÍinjurious€falsehood€to€recover€for€damages€it€paid€in€the€settlement€and€forÏdamages€for€loss€of€business.€€ò òòòId.€ó óóóat€1319„20.€€Sverdrup€asserted€the€defense€ofÏabsolute€privilege€in€its€role€as€an€expert€witness.€€ò òòòSee€id.€ó óóóat€1320„21.€€òòò ò€óóó óTheÏcourt€held€that€Sverdrupððs€reports€were€privileged€because€the€Board€wasÏseriously€contemplating€litigation,€the€reports€were€ð ððða€necessary€step€in€takingÏlegal€action,ðððð€and€the€Board€actually€relied€upon€the€reports€in€bringing€suit.€Ïò òòòId.€ó óóóat€1322.Ìà àPickering€also€relies€on€ò òòòGeneral€Electric€Co.€v.€Sargent€&€Lundyó óóó,€916€F.2dÏ1119€(6th€Cir.€1990),€in€which€Kentucky€Utilities€informed€Sargent€&€LundyÏ(Sargent),€an€engineering€firm,€that€it€was€considering€litigation€against€theÏfirm€to€recover€the€costs€for€repair€and€redesign€of€one€of€Sargentððs€projects.€Ïò òòòId.ó óóó€at€1122.€€Sargent€signed€a€waiver€of€the€statute€of€limitations€and€preparedÏreports€blaming€Envirotech,€a€company€subsequently€purchased€by€GeneralÏElectric,€for€the€problems.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€When€Kentucky€Utilities€sued€General€Electric,ÏGEESI€(a€wholly€owned€subsidiary€of€General€Electric),€Envirotech,€and€Sargent,ÏGeneral€Electric€and€GEESI€filed€cross„claims€against€Sargent€for€injuriousÏfalsehood.€€ò òòòId.ó óóóat€1123.€€Sargent€then€sought€to€exclude€as€absolutely€privilegedÏthe€documents€and€statements€it€made€after€executing€the€statute€ofÏlimitations€waiver€because€they€were€made€in€contemplation€of€litigation.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€ÍThe€district€court€held€that€the€documents€and€statements€were€not€privilegedÏand€that,€even€if€they€were€privileged,€Sargent€lost€the€privilege€because€theÏstatements€were€made€in€furtherance€of€a€fraud.€€ò òòòId.óóó óÌà àSargent€appealed,€and€at€the€time,€Kentucky€courts€had€not€yet€had€theÏopportunity€to€address€whether€an€absolute€privilege€applied€to€statementsÏmade€preliminary€to€judicial€proceedings.€€ò òòòId.€ó óóóat€1126.€€Noting€that€KentuckyÏcourts€often€turned€to€the€provisions€of€the€ò òòòRestatement€(Second)€of€Tortsóó€ó óforÏguidance€with€respect€to€the€absolute€privilege,€the€court€relied€on€ðð€587€of€theÏò òòòRestatement€(Second)€of€Tortsó óóó€in€holding€that€such€statements€are€absolutelyÏprivileged€if€they€are€made€in€contemplation€of€litigation.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€1125„26Ï(citing€ò òòòRestatement€œ(Second)€of›€Tortsó óóó€ðð€587,€at€248).€€Concluding€that€SargentððsÏdocuments€and€statements€met€these€requirements€and€were€absolutelyÏprivileged,€the€court€reversed€the€district€court.€ò òòò€Id.ó óóó€at€1129.€€ò òòòAccord€Kahn€v.ÏBurmanó óóó,€673€F.€Supp.€210€(E.D.€Mich.€1987)€(holding€that€witness€immunityÏencompasses€reports€prepared€by€witnesses€before€litigation€even€though€notÏmade€under€oath€because€they€are€relevant€to€œjudicial›€proceedings),€ò òòòaffððdó óóó,€878ÏF.2d€1436€(6th€Cir.€1989);€ò òòòAdams€v.€Peckó óóó,€403€A.2d€840€(Md.€Ct.€App.€1979)Ï(holding€that€privilege€extends€to€communications€made€by€witnesses€beforeÏtrial,€including€a€report€prepared€by€a€psychiatrist,€if€related€in€some€way€to€theÍpending€litigation);€ò òòòDurand€Equipment€Co.€v.€Superior€Carbon€Products,€Inc.ó óóó,Ï591€A.2d€987€(N.J.€Super.€Ct.€App.€Div.€1991)€(holding€that€absolute€immunityÏextends€to€documents€used€in€preparation€for€judicial€proceedings)òòò ò;€Bruce€v.ÏByrne„Stevens€&€Assocs.€Engððrs,€Inc.ó óóó€776€P.2d€666€(Wash.€1989)€(holding€that€aÏreport€prepared€before€trial€by€an€engineer€who€had€been€retained€as€an€expertÏwitness€was€privileged).òòò òÌóóó óà àPrior€to€LSSMððs€hiring€of€Pickering,€FB&D,€the€general€contractor€forÏboth€projects€in€Lutheran€Village,€filed€suit€against€LSSM€and€MK€in€theÏchancery€court.€€As€to€LSSM,€FB&Dððs€complaint€seeks,€among€other€things,Ïenforcement€of€a€mechanicððs€lien€and€recovery€for€breach€of€contract€or€underÏquantum€meruit.€€FB&Dððs€€complaint€also€seeks€recovery€from€MK€forÏinterference€with€a€contract€and€for€negligent€design€and€supervision€of€theÏprojects€in€breach€of€their€contractual€duties€as€architects.€€Proof€wasÏintroduced€in€the€instant€case€that€the€Pickering€firm€was€hired€to€provideÏexpert€witnesses€and€to€furnish€information€to€LSSM€concerning€the€defects€inÏthe€construction,€any€problems€with€the€design,€and€what€entity€or€entitiesÏwere€responsible€for€the€problem.€€Pickering€was€also€employed€to€provideÏsolutions€for€the€existing€problems€and€estimate€the€cost€of€correcting€theÏproblems.€€Although€Pickering€might€have€had€a€dual€role,€it€seems€clear€thatÍthe€information€Pickering€furnished€was€pertinent€and€relevant€to€the€issuesÏdrawn€in€the€chancery€court€lawsuit€and€perhaps€could€constitute€essentialÏevidence€for€LSSMððs€defense.€€Ìà àMK€contends€that€the€Report€was€unsigned,€unsealed,€and€issued€byÏPickering€in€its€corporate€capacity.€€We€must€respectfully€disagree€with€thisÏcharacterization.€€The€Report€is€merely€an€assimilation€of€the€informationÏcompiled€by€various€representatives€of€Pickering€in€their€role€as€expertÏwitnesses€in€the€chancery€court€litigation€and€in€anticipation€of€their€upcomingÏtestimony€in€that€proceeding.Ìà àIn€ò òòòJones€v.€Triceó óóó,€210€Tenn.€at€535,€360€S.W.2d€at€48,€our€SupremeÏCourt€strongly€endorsed€a€liberal€application€œof€the›€absolute€privilege€accordedÏto€publication€of€defamatory€matters€in€connection€with€judicial€proceedings.€ÏThe€Court€said:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àUnderlying€this€general€doctrine€of€absoluteÏimmunity€from€liability€in€libel€and€slander€forÏstatements€made€in€the€course€of€a€judicial€proceedingÏis€a€policy€decision€by€the€courts€that€access€to€theÏjudicial€process,€freedom€to€institute€an€action,€orÏdefend,€or€participate€therein€without€fear€of€theÏburden€of€being€sued€for€defamation€is€so€vital€andÏnecessary€to€the€integrity€of€our€judicial€system€that€itÏmust€be€made€paramount€to€the€right€of€an€individualÏto€a€legal€remedy€where€he€has€been€wronged€thereby.ÌÌÓÓ360€S.W.2d€at€51.€€The€Courtððs€reliance€in€ò òòòJonesó óóó€on€the€òòò òRestatement€of€Tortsó óóóÍalso€indicates€its€willingness€to€extend€the€doctrine€to€communicationsÏpreliminary€to€proposed€or€pending€litigation.€€Therefore,€we€hold€thatÏPickeringððs€Report€as€published€to€LSSM€is€absolutely€privileged.Ìà àAlthough€we€find€that€a€privilege€existed,€this€does€not€end€the€inquiry.€ÏWe€must€now€determine€whether€the€absolute€privilege€includes€MKððs€actionsÏbased€upon€the€procurement€or€inducement€of€breach€of€contract.€€In€ruling€onÏthe€motion€for€a€judgment€notwithstanding€a€verdict,€the€trial€court€relied€onÏtwo€cases:€ò òòòLann€v.€Third€National€Bankó óóó,€198€Tenn.€70,€277€S.W.2d€439Ï(1955),€and€ò òòòMiddlesex€óóó ó€ò òòòConcrete€Products€&€Excavating€Corp.€v.€Carteret€ÏIndustrial€Assððnó óóó,€172€A.2d€22€(N.€J.€Super.€Ct.€App.€Div.€1961).€€In€ò òòòLannó óóó,€theÏplaintiff,€a€œbusinesswoman,›€sued€the€bank€for€what€is€termed€in€her€pleadings€asÏinterference€with€and€injury€to€her€business.€€ò òòòLannó óóó,€277€S.W.2d€at€440.€€SheÏalleged€in€her€bill€that€the€bank€had€made€false€and€defamatory€statements€in€aÏsuit€seeking€to€recover€a€debt.€€ò òòòId.€€óóó óThe€bill€stated€that€the€suit€was€for€ð ðslanderÏof€property,€based€upon€the€alleged€false€and€defamatory€matter€obtained€in€theÏoriginal€bill€in€a€prior€case,€and€.€.€.€moral€or€business€duress€based€alike€on€saidÏalleged€false€and€defamatory€matter€and€other€facts€and€circumstances.ðð€€ò òòòId.€Ïóóó óThe€defendant€bankððs€demurrer€to€the€bill€was€sustained.€€On€appeal,€ourÏSupreme€Court€held€that€the€averments€in€the€bankððs€pleadings,€although€falseÍand€malicious,€were€absolutely€privileged€because€they€were€made€in€the€courseÏof€judicial€proceedings€and€were€relevant€to€those€proceedings.€€ò òòòId.€€óóó óThe€CourtÏnoted€that€Lannððs€action€was€based€in€part€on€tortious€interference€with€herÏbusiness.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€In€affirming€the€trial€court,€the€Court€concluded€that€ð ðifÏprivileged€for€one€purpose€[the€statements]€must€be€privileged€for€all€others.ððÏò òòòId.€€óóó óat€443.Ìà àIn€ò òòòMiddlesex€Concrete€Products€&€Excavating€Corp.€v.€Carteret€IndustrialÏAssððnó óóó,€172€A.2d€22€(N.J.€Super.€Ct.€App.€Div.€1961),€an€engineering€firm€wasÏretained€as€a€consultant€in€a€pending€lawsuit€between€a€construction€firm€and€aÏcity€borough€arising€out€of€the€construction€of€a€sewage€treatment€plant.€€ò òòòId.€ó óóóatÏ23.€€The€engineering€firm€performed€an€investigation,€published€a€report,€andÏtestified€at€trial€as€an€expert€witness.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€24.€€The€construction€firm€sued€theÏengineering€firm€for€tortious€interference€with€contractual€and€business€rightsÏand€relations.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€22.€€On€appeal,€the€court€asserted€that€ð ðstatements€madeÏin€judicial€or€òòquasióó„judicial€proceedings€and€having€some€relation€thereto€areÏabsolutely€privileged€against€a€suit€for€defamation.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€25€(citationsÏomitted).€€The€court€further€asserted€that€the€privilege€extended€to€preliminaryÏconferences€and€steps€taken€in€preparation€of€the€case€for€trial.€€ò òòòId.€€óóó óThe€courtÏheld€that€the€engineering€firmððs€report,€consultations,€aid,€and€advice€wereÍrendered€as€a€part€of€a€judicial€proceeding€and€could€not€be€the€basis€of€a€suitÏfor€tortious€interference€because€to€hold€otherwise€would€circumvent€theÏabsolute€privilege.€€€ò òòòId.€ó óóóat€25„26.€€Ìà àPickering€further€relies€on€òòò òWestern€Technologies,€Inc.€v.€Sverdrup€&ÏParceló óóó,€739€P.2d€1318€(Ariz.€Ct.€App.€1986),€€in€support€of€its€argument€thatÏMKððs€claims€for€inducement€to€breach€of€contract€are€barred€by€the€absoluteÏprivilege.€€In€that€case,€the€court€addressed€whether€Westernððs€claim€forÏtortious€interference€with€business€was€barred€by€the€same€absolute€privilegeÏthat€barred€its€claim€for€injurious€falsehood.€€ò òòòId.€óóó óat€1322.€€òòò ò€óóó óThe€court€assertedÏthat€the€importance€of€protecting€witnesses€from€liability€arising€out€of€theirÏroles€in€the€judicial€process€outweighs€competing€considerations.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€1323.€ÏThe€court€reasoned€that€ð ðit€would€be€illogical€to€hold€that€the€representations€.Ï.€.€made€are€absolutely€privileged€in€the€context€of€an€injurious€falsehood€action,Ïbut€that€the€same€representations€are€not€privileged€in€the€context€of€a€suit€forÏcontractual€interference.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€Thus,€the€court€held€that€Westernððs€claim€forÏtortious€interference€was€barred€by€the€same€privilege€that€barred€the€injuriousÏfalsehood€action.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€1324.€Ìà àIn€ò òòò€Lannó óóó,€our€Supreme€Court€recognized€the€extension€of€the€absoluteÏprivilege€to€causes€of€action€other€than€actions€for€defamation,€and€cases€fromÍother€jurisdictions€support€such€an€extension.€€Therefore,€we€hold€that€theÏabsolute€privilege€afforded€a€publication€of€false€and€defamatory€statements€inÏthe€course€of€judicial€proceedings€applies€to€an€action€for€procurement€orÏinducement€of€breach€of€contract€based€on€those€false€and€defamatoryÏstatements.Ìà àMK€also€asserts€that€Pickeringððs€actions,€apart€from€the€allegedlyÏdefamatory€Report,€procured€or€induced€the€breach€of€the€contracts€withÏLSSM.€€However,€from€our€review€of€the€record,€it€appears€that€aÏdetermination€by€LSSM€to€terminate€the€contracts€with€MK€emanated€fromÏthe€information€furnished€to€LSSM€in€the€Report€concerning€MKððs€performanceÏof€its€contracts.€€Ìà àAccordingly,€we€find€that€the€absolute€privilege€applies€and€that€the€trialÏcourt€correctly€granted€a€judgment€notwithstanding€the€verdict€on€the€actionsÏbased€upon€the€procurement€of€breach€of€contract.Ìà àIn€view€of€our€ruling€on€MKððs€first€two€issues,€we€pretermit€MKððs€thirdÏissue.Ìà àPickeringððs€first€issue€for€review€is:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à1.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€grantingÏPickeringððs€Motion€for€Directed€Verdict€on€the€libelÏclaims€that€were€not€excluded€by€the€previous€rulingÏon€Pickeringððs€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment.ÌÌÓÓà àPickering€first€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€deniedÏPickeringððs€motion€for€a€directed€verdict€because€there€was€no€publication€toÏOmega€or€Thompson„White.€€Pickeringððs€assertion€is€made€in€reliance€on€thisÏCourtððs€holding€in€ò òòòWoods€v.€Helmió óóó,€758€S.W.2d€219€(Tenn.€App.€1988).€€InÏò òòòWoodsó óóó,€the€plaintiff,€a€certified€registered€nurse€anesthetist,€brought€suitÏagainst€her€immediate€supervisor€and€others€seeking€damages€for€allegedÏdefamation€and€wrongful€interference€with€employment.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€220.€€TheÏplaintiff€and€her€supervisor€were€both€employed€by€the€Regional€Medical€CenterÏin€Memphis€(The€Med).€€ò òòòId.€€óóó óThe€Med€had€a€unique€arrangement€for€theÏoperation€of€its€anesthesiology€department€in€that€it€had€its€own€paidÏemployees€and€also€had€physicians€provided€by€the€University€of€TennesseeÏemployed€as€part€of€the€staff€of€The€Med.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€220„21.€€The€plaintiffððsÏsupervisor€issued€a€memo€concerning€operating€room€behavior€of€the€plaintiffÏthat€was€sent€to€persons€who€ð ðhad€managerial,€supervisory€or€administrativeÏresponsibilities€and€oversight€for€[the]€internal€affairs€of€The€MedððsÏanesthesiology€department€and€were€immediately€interested€in€the€informationÏtransmitted.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó ó€óóat€222.€€The€Court€noted€that€communication€of€defamatoryÏmatter€between€the€agents€and€officers€of€the€corporation€in€the€ordinaryÏcourse€of€business€is€not€a€publication.€ò òòò€Id.ó óóó€(citing€òòò òFreeman€v.€Dayton€ScaleÍCo.ó óóó,€159€Tenn.€413,€19€S.W.2d€255€(Tenn.€1929)).€€In€this€vein,€the€Court€said:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€€€While€many€of€the€cases€denying€the€existence€of€aÏpublication€speak€in€terms€of€corporationsÏcommunicating€to€or€with€itself,€it€seems€to€thisÏCourt€that€more€essential€to€the€issue€is€the€conceptÏof€ð ðneed€to€know,ðð€with€the€communication€flowingÏthrough€the€proper€chain€of€command,€particularly€inÏemployee€performance€reviews€or€disciplinary€action.€€ÏIt€could€readily€be€argued€that€the€concept€of€intra„corporate€communications€would€not€apply€if,€in€theÏcase€of€a€review€by€corporate€superiors€of€the€allegedÏmisconduct€of€a€branch€manager,€the€circumstancesÏsurrounding€his€misconduct€were€communicated€alsoÏto€the€corporationððs€truck€driver€or€janitor,€whoÏobviously€would€not€be€in€the€ð ðneed€to€knowððÏpipeline.ÌÌò òòòId.ó óóó€at€223.ÌÌÓÓà àPickering€asserts€that€disseminating€the€report€to€Omega€and€toÏThompson„White€was€necessary€because€they€had€a€ð ðneed€to€knowðð€in€order€toÏperform€their€function€for€LSSM.€€€We€believe€Pickeringððs€reliance€on€òòò òWoodsó óóó€isÏmisplaced.€€In€ò òòòWoodsó óóó,€the€dissemination€of€the€alleged€defamatory€material€wasÏmade€within€a€particular€managerial€structure,€albeit€one€involving€two€differentÏentities.€€In€the€case€at€bar,€the€publication€of€the€defamatory€material€wasÏmade€to€separate€entities€and€clearly€would€not€fall€within€the€rule€establishedÏby€ò òòòFreeman€v.€Dayton€Scaleó óóó,€€159€Tenn.€at€413,€19€S.W.2d€at€255.€€PickeringÏcommunicated€the€defamatory€statements€to€the€distinct€entities€of€Omega€andÍThompson„White.€€Communicating€a€defamatory€statement€to€a€third€personÏestablishes€the€element€of€publication€for€a€libel€claim.€€ò òòòLittle€Stores€v.€Isenbergó óóó,Ï26€Tenn.€App.€357,€172€S.W.2d€13€(Tenn.€App.€1943).€€This€argument€isÏwithout€merit.€€Ìà àPickering€next€asserts€that€the€absolute€privilege€afforded€to€theÏcommunication€to€LSSM€could€also€be€afforded€to€Thompson„White€andÏOmega€because€they€had€a€legal€necessity€for€the€Report€as€co„witnesses€forÏLSSM€in€the€chancery€court€lawsuit.€€We€must€respectfully€disagree.€€TheÏprimary€role€of€Omega€was€to€complete€the€work€necessary€to€finish€theÏprojects,€and€the€primary€job€for€Thompson„White€was€to€market€the€projects.€ÏLSSM€retained€Pickering€to€determine€cause€and€effect,€thus€Pickeringððs€ReportÏto€LSSM€for€use€in€the€defense€of€the€chancery€lawsuit€was€in€furtherance€ofÏthat€legal€proceeding.€€However,€the€publication€of€the€Report€to€Omega,€theÏcontractor€employed€to€finish€the€project,€and€Thompson„White,€the€marketingÏentity,€was€not€related€to€the€legal€proceedings€in€the€chancery€court.€ÏTherefore,€the€trial€court€correctly€ruled€that€there€was€no€privilege€in€theÏpublication€of€the€Report€to€Omega€and€Thompson„White.Ìà àPickering€next€asserts€that€the€essential€elements€of€libel€were€notÏproven.€€Pickering€€states€in€its€brief:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àPursuant€to€the€Tennessee€Pattern€Jury€Instructions,Ïthe€following€are€the€elements€for€libel:€1)€theÏdefendant€communicated€to€persons€other€than€theÏplaintiffs€a€statement€through€its€April€15,€1991ÏReport€concerning€the€plaintiffs€that€was€a€libel€asÏthat€term€[is]€defined€in€the€instructions;€2)€theÏdefendant€was€guilty€of€negligence€in€failing€toÏdetermine€the€truth€of€the€statement€prior€toÏcommunicating€it€or€that€the€defendantÏcommunicated€the€statement€with€knowledge€that€itÏwas€false;€3)€the€libel€was€read€or€heard€by€personsÏother€than€the€plaintiffs,€who€understood€its€libelousÏmeaning€and€that€it€referred€to€the€plaintiffs;€and€4)Ïthe€plaintiffs€were€injured€by€the€communication€ofÏthe€libel;€and€5)€the€statement€about€the€plaintiffs€wasÏfalse.€€(See€T.P.I.€„€Civil€„€7.02).ÌÌÓÓà àWe€agree€that€Pickering€correctly€states€the€law.€€Pickering€specificallyÏargues€that€MK€failed€to€prove€the€third€element€and€the€fourth€element.€€TheÏthird€element€requires€that€a€third€person€read€the€publication€and€understandÏits€libelous€meaning€and€that€the€publication€refers€to€the€plaintiff.€€PickeringÏargues€that€although€it€is€conceded€that€Omega€received€a€copy€of€the€Report,Ïthere€is€no€proof€that€any€one€at€Omega€read€the€Report€or€understood€itsÏlibelous€meaning€and€that€this€holds€true€also€for€Thompson„White.€€However,Ïthe€record€indicates€that€Omega€received€the€Report€for€its€use€in€bidding€onÏthe€project€for€completion€of€Lutheran€Village€and€that€Thompson„WhiteÏreceived€the€Report€in€connection€with€its€marketing€efforts€for€both€projects.€ÏThe€record€further€indicates€that€during€the€course€of€the€correctiveÍconstruction€work,€periodic€meetings€were€held€in€which€the€Report€wasÏreferred€to€concerning€the€remedial€work€required.€€This€record€has€ample€proofÏthat€Omega€and€Thompson„White€read€the€Report€and€relied€on€its€many€falseÏstatements€concerning€defective€design€and€code€violations€to€finish€theÏprojects.€€Moreover,€whether€Omega€and€Thompson„White€understood€theÏdefamatory€meaning€of€the€Report€was€a€question€for€the€jury.€€ò òòòMemphis€PublððgÏCo.€v.€Nicholsó óóó,€569€S.W.2d€412,€419€(Tenn.€1978).€€This€argument€is€withoutÏmerit.€€Ìà àPickering€also€asserts€that€the€fourth€element€of€libel€is€not€presentÏbecause€MK€failed€to€prove€any€damages€resulting€from€the€alleged€defamatoryÏstatements€communicated€to€Omega€and€Thompson„White.€€Without€goingÏinto€detail€on€all€of€the€damages,€the€jury€awarded€MK€recovery€for€emotionalÏdistress€resulting€from€the€publication€of€the€false€and€defamatory€statements.€ÏCertainly€each€publication€would€result€in€additional€emotional€distress,€andÏthere€is€material€evidence€that€could€indicate€emotional€distress€resulting€fromÏthe€communication€of€the€defamatory€statements€to€Omega€and€Thompson„White.€€Ìà àAccordingly,€the€trial€court€correctly€denied€Pickeringððs€motion€for€aÏdirected€verdict€on€the€libel€claims€that€were€not€excluded€by€the€previousÍruling€on€Pickeringððs€motion€for€summary€judgment.Ìà àIn€its€second€issue,€Pickering€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€notÏruling€that€the€damages€awarded€by€the€jury€on€the€libel€claims€were€excessive.€ÏIf€there€is€any€material€evidence€to€support€the€award€of€damages,€we€mustÏaffirm€the€judgment.€€T.R.A.P.€13(d).€€In€making€this€determination,€everyÏreasonable€inference€must€be€drawn€in€favor€of€MK.€ò òòò€Moore€v.€Baileyó óóó,€628ÏS.W.2d€431,€434€(Tenn.€App.€1981)€(citations€omitted).Ìà àUnder€Tennessee€law,€a€plaintiff€is€required€to€prove€actual€damages€in€allÏdefamation€cases.€€ò òòòHandley€v.€Mayó óóó,€588€S.W.2d€772,€776€(Tenn.€App.€1979).€ÏThe€actual€damage€requirement€was€discussed€by€the€United€States€SupremeÏCourt€in€ò òòòGertz€v.€Robert€Welch,€Inc.ó óóó,€418€U.S.€323,€94€S.€Ct.€2997,€41€L.€Ed.€2dÏ789€(1974):ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àWe€need€not€define€ð ðactual€injury,ðð€as€trial€courtsÏhave€wide€experience€in€framing€appropriate€juryÏinstructions€in€tort€actions.€€Suffice€it€to€say€thatÏactual€injury€is€not€limited€to€out„of„pocket€loss.€ÏIndeed,€the€more€customary€types€of€actual€harmÏinflicted€by€defamatory€falsehood€include€impairmentÏof€reputation€and€standing€in€the€community,Ïpersonal€humiliation,€and€mental€anguish€andÏsuffering.€€Of€course,€juries€must€be€limited€byÏappropriate€instructions,€and€all€awards€must€beÏsupported€by€competent€evidence€concerning€theÏinjury,€although€there€need€be€no€evidence€whichÏassigns€an€actual€dollar€value€to€the€injury.ÌÌò òòòÓÓId.ó óóó€at€349„50,€94€S.€Ct.€at€3012.€€The€failure€to€prove€special€damages€or€out„of„pocket€losses€is€not€necessarily€determinative.€€ò òòòHandleyó óóó,€588€S.W.2d€at€776.€ÏThe€issue€is€whether€the€record€contains€any€material€evidence€of€impairmentÏof€reputation€and€standing€in€the€community,€personal€humiliation,€or€mentalÏanguish€and€suffering.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€Ìà àThe€amount€of€damages€assessed€depends€on€the€degree€of€moralÏturpitude€of€the€defendantððs€conduct.€€ò òòòSaunders€v.€Baxteró óóó,€53€Tenn.€(6€Heisk.)Ï369,€385€(1871).€€Absence€of€malice€may€be€shown€by€the€defendantððsÏretraction€of€the€libel€to€mitigate€the€damages.€ò òòò€Seeóóó ó€ò òòòKnoxville€Publððg€Co.€v.ÏTayloró óóó,€31€Tenn.€App.€368,€375,€215€S.W.2d€27,€30€(1948).€€Unless€ð ðactualÏmaliceðð€is€shown,€punitive€damages€are€not€permitted.€€òòò òMemphis€Publððg€Co.ó óóó,Ï569€S.W.2d€at€421.€€A€refusal€to€retract€after€a€request€for€retraction€is€madeÏor€the€republication€after€notice€is€given€of€the€falsity€of€the€statements€isÏevidence€of€malice.€€ò òòòSee€e.g.ó óóó,€ò òòòVigil€v.€Riceó óóó,€397€P.2d€719€(N.M.€1964)€(holdingÏthat€refusal€to€retract€defamatory€statements€is€evidence€of€malice€to€destroy€aÏqualified€privilege);€ò òòòMorgan€v.€Dunn€&€Bradstreet,€Inc.ó óóó,€421€F.2d€1241€(6thÏCir.€1970)€(holding€that€republication€after€knowledge€of€the€falsity€of€theÏdefamatory€statements€is€sufficient€evidence€of€malice€to€support€punitiveÏdamages).€€à àIn€ò òòòHandley€v.€Mayó óóó,€588€S.W.2d€772€(Tenn.€App.€1979),€this€CourtÍconsidered€whether€there€was€any€material€evidence€on€the€issue€of€damages€toÏsubmit€an€action€for€slander€to€a€jury.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€776.€€The€plaintiffððs€tax€returnsÏshowed€that€she€did€not€suffer€any€lost€revenues€to€her€business€after€the€allegedÏslander€was€uttered.€€ò òòòId.€€óóó óAsserting€that€the€failure€to€prove€out„of„pocket€lossÏwas€not€dispositive,€the€Court€examined€the€record€for€evidence€of€actual€harm.€Ïò òòòId.€óóó óThe€evidence€indicated€that€the€plaintiff€was€under€mental€stressÏindependent€from€the€slander,€that€the€slander€ð ðwas€quite€upsettingðð€to€theÏplaintiff,€and€that€she€was€unable€to€concentrate€in€her€business.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€776„77.€ÏBecause€ð ðmere€annoyance€or€loss€of€peace€of€mind€do€not€constituteÏrecoverable€special€damages,ðð€the€Court€held€that€there€was€no€materialÏevidence€on€the€issue€of€damages.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€777.Ìà àIn€ò òòòMoore€v.€Baileyó óóó,€628€S.W.2d€431€(Tenn.€App.€1981),€this€CourtÏconsidered€€whether€an€award€of€compensatory€and€punitive€damages€forÏdefamation€was€excessive.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€434.€€In€that€case,€the€defendant€madeÏaccusations€about€the€plaintiff,€a€county€environmentalist€for€the€TennesseeÏDepartment€of€Public€Health,€to€the€state€inspector€general€and€to€theÏplaintiffððs€supervisor.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€432.€€The€plaintiff€sued€the€defendant€for€slander,Ïand€the€jury€returned€a€verdict€in€favor€of€the€plaintiff€and€awarded€$1,000.00Ïin€compensatory€damages€and€$5,000.00€in€punitive€damages.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€at€433.€€TheÍdefendant€appealed€the€jury€verdict,€asserting€that€there€was€no€materialÏevidence€to€support€the€recovery€of€compensatory€or€punitive€damages.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€atÏ434.€€The€Court€pointed€out€that€the€plaintiff€put€on€proof€from€which€a€juryÏcould€find€he€suffered€minimal€out„of„pocket€loss€because€of€lost€time€fromÏwork€and€lost€vacation€time€and€incurred€expenses€in€traveling€to€respond€toÏthe€charges€made€by€the€defendant.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó€€The€Court€further€pointed€out€the€juryÏcould€find€from€the€plaintiffððs€own€testimony€that€he€suffered€humiliation€andÏmental€anguish€as€a€result€of€the€defendantððs€actions.€€ò òòòId.€€ó óóóThus,€the€CourtÏconcluded€that€there€was€material€evidence€to€support€the€jury€awards.€€ò òòòId.€€Ìà àó óóóUnder€the€principles€above,€we€must€determine€whether€there€is€materialÏevidence€to€support€the€amounts€awarded€by€the€jury€on€the€libel€claims,€whichÏincluded€$150,000.00€for€emotional€distress,€$250,000.00€for€pecuniary€losses,Ï$200,000.00€for€injuries€to€MKððs€reputation,€and€$100,000.00€for€punitiveÏdamages.× ƒ6 ××  ×€à àÌà àThe€record€is€replete€with€testimony€concerning€the€emotional€distressÏthat€Myers€and€Klimek€suffered€as€a€result€of€the€Report.€€Myers€testified€thatÍhe€spent€forty€years€of€his€life€building€his€reputation€in€the€architecturalÏbusiness€and€that€the€statements€in€the€Report€devastated€and€humiliated€himÏand€caused€him€to€become€severely€depressed.€€Klimek€also€testified€that€theÏstatements€in€the€Report€caused€him€great€distress.€€Although€this€testimonyÏrelated€to€the€original€publication€of€the€Report,€it€is€reasonable€to€infer€thatÏMK€suffered€the€same€emotional€distress€from€each€publication€of€the€Report,Ïincluding€the€publication€to€Omega€and€Thompson„White.€€Under€theÏprinciples€above,€there€is€material€evidence€to€support€the€amount€awarded€forÏemotional€distress.Ìà àAs€for€the€$250,000.00€awarded€by€the€jury€for€pecuniary€losses,€MKÏpoints€out€that€it€is€no€longer€in€existence€and€that€Myers€and€Klimek€are€noÏlonger€practicing€architecture.€€However,€there€is€no€evidence€that€this€was€aÏresult€of€the€publication€of€the€Report€to€Omega€and€Thompson„White€and€notÏa€result€of€the€publication€of€the€Report€to€LSSM.€€There€is€also€no€evidenceÏthat€MK€suffered€any€pecuniary€losses€or€lost€any€potential€businessÏopportunities€with€Omega€or€Thompson„White€by€virtue€of€the€publication€ofÏthe€Report€to€those€entities.€€There€is€no€material€evidence€in€the€record€toÏsupport€this€award.€€€€Ìà àThe€jury€further€awarded€MK€$200,000.00€for€the€injuries€to€itsÍreputation€as€a€result€of€the€publication€to€Omega€and€Thompson„White.€€TheÏonly€evidence€in€the€record€with€respect€to€any€possible€injury€to€MKððsÏreputation€is€Melvin€OððBrienððs€testimony€that€the€publication€of€such€a€reportÏwould€injure€an€architectððs€reputation.€€However,€there€is€no€testimony€orÏevidence€in€the€record€establishing€that€MK€actually€suffered€injuries€to€itsÏreputation€as€a€result€of€the€publication€to€Omega€and€Thompson„White.€€AfterÏreviewing€the€record,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€indicates€that€the€injuryÏMK€suffered€to€its€reputation,€if€any,€resulted€from€the€privilegedÏcommunications€of€the€Report,€MKððs€replacement€by€Pickering€as€projectÏarchitect,€and€MKððs€termination€by€LSSM.€€There€is€no€material€evidence€toÏsupport€this€award.Ìà àThe€jury€also€awarded€$100,000.00€in€punitive€damages€to€MK€on€theÏlibel€claims.€€The€record€indicates€that€MK€requested€that€Pickering€correct€theÏerrors€or€retract€the€defamatory€statements€in€the€Report,€but€that€PickeringÏfailed€to€do€as€MK€requested.€€This€is€sufficient€evidence€of€Pickeringððs€actualÏmalice€to€support€the€jury€award€of€punitive€damages.Ìà àUnder€the€principles€above,€we€conclude€that€there€is€no€materialÏevidence€to€support€the€$200,000.00€awarded€to€MK€for€injuries€to€itsÏreputation€or€the€$250,000.00€awarded€to€MK€for€pecuniary€losses,€but€thatÍthere€is€material€evidence€to€support€the€$150,000.00€awarded€for€emotionalÏdistress€and€the€$100,000.00€awarded€as€punitive€damages.€€à àÌà àBecause€of€our€conclusion€that€the€absolute€privilege€bars€MKððs€claims€forÏinducement€of€breach€of€contract,€Pickeringððs€third€issue€is€pretermitted.€€Ìà àAccordingly,€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€on€the€jury€verdict€is€modified€toÏaward€MK€$150,000.00€compensatory€damages€and€$100,000.00€punitiveÏdamages.€€As€modified,€the€judgment€on€the€jury€verdict€is€affirmed.€€The€orderÏof€the€trial€court€granting€a€œjudgment€notwithstanding€the€verdict›€to€PickeringÏon€the€causes€of€action€for€inducement€or€procurement€of€breach€of€contract€isÏaffirmed.€€Costs€of€appeal€are€assessed€one„half€to€appellants€and€one„half€toÏappellees.€The€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€such€further€proceedingsÏas€may€be€necessary.ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ó óÌò òCONCUR:ÌÌó ó____________________________________Ìò òDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEó óÌÌœò ò____________________________________ÌHEWITT€P.€TOMLIN,€JR.,€ÌSENIOR€JUDGEó ó