WPC  9+nNToTO E B&5=K}a/,es2EM\Sj Do2쬼/Tvʠ}EQ[fԢ%Ö{q|Z&Ϝ/û% ٵuw˭ a瀾JԚ5I+bۤ#2\5XV>w1`л4g ^\а\jD- 6g Q}2p=hK iҝA1Kժ2̣/.,6J8Dq.ӬSK$ OAk(c 줤&HF&]ƯL(XwU)vA\ZBӬn9 R_%껉0> [pq 0Ʒ WצD]ZIgJ} /&g4A YDJZ7o˜6^1`b %\U@b 0N*U$N, 72z 1 z3  0w U, UN" U@p  v <  0DN  72 0c@E 0 0/ 0 0 0J 0% 0D 1uX 72 1 72-YU<>^ zw4 m#b 0 Bzz 0 D3; D-n 0K AS9 0 0D A(9 Z(Times New Roman (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regulari) h6CEIMQUY]aAutoList1""""""""i)1)a) C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#,  AZArial (9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(hH  Z(Times New Roman Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0  "(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(# 3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i) hFCEIMQUY]aAutoList2""""""""i)1)a) " ## CXd# O R$      1  :   _  : ` _Trau_ԄMedscomplaintspecifically#:  ~# b  :#:   b#  :listsotheractionsas InRe:DocketNumbers906734T.D.(Rook),  906744T.D.(Bracken),858452T.D.(Smith),856378T.D.(Small),and788642T.D.(_Warmath_).-Bu Z$Arrus BT Roman) "q~)Ck23|x UHP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0- -(|G2$ !.8[ d d 8         0  : d(|3M$ !.8[ d d 8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3M$ !.8[ d d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Td d8     _  T8>,XXdd 8  @ TINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#T #Ԉ    September19,2000Session 8 X>,XT #TXX>,#_TRAU_ԄMEDOFAMERICA,INC.,etal.v.ALLSTATEINSURANCE . COMPANY,etal.X>,XT   < @@ ADirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforShelbyCounty  4 @@No.97901T.D.TheHonorableRobertL.Childers,Judge   @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W199901524_COA_ԄR3CVFiledNovember29,2000   AV) ` dE<X` A Y     XXXX>,Plaintiffmedicalclinicfiledacomplaintagainstaninsurancecompanyandseveralofitsemployees R alleging,interalia,thatthedefendants_tortiously_Ԁinterferedwiththeirbusinessrelationship,thatthe > attorneyssuppliedbytheinsurancecompanytorepresentitsinsuredwereguiltyofabuseofprocess *z andthatthedefendantsconspiredtodestroyplaintiffsreputationinbusiness.Thetrialcourt f dismissedthecomplaintforfailuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted.Plaintiffhas R appealed. `  > #X>,XXX ##TXX>,#X>,XT _Tenn.R.App.P._Ԁ3;AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtReversedInPart,  AffirmedinPartandRemanded     #TX>,#X>,X.TW.FrankCrawford,P.J.,W.S.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichAlanE._Highers_, l J.andDavidR.Farmer,J.,joined. V EdM.Hurley,Memphis,ForAppellant,_Trau_ԄMedofAmerica,Inc. * z R._Layne_Ԁ_Holley_,Memphis,WilliamH.Frye,Memphis,ForAppellees,AllstateInsuranceCompany, !N! _Vickie_ԀHarris,CharlesD._Ferrell_,LeslieJohnson,andRon_Iden_ "8"   OPINION #TXX>,B #X>,XT $ $ #TXX>,W #X>,XT  XXXX>,"z  Plaintiffappellant,_Trau_ԄMedofAmerica,Inc.d/b/aBellevueClinic,(hereinafter_Trau_ԄMed), &!& filedacomplaintagainstdefendantsappellees,AllstateInsuranceCompany,_Vickie_ԀHarris,Charles |'"' D._Ferrell_,LeslieJohnsonandRon_Iden_Ԁ(hereinafterAllstateordefendants). h(#(   _Trau_ԄMed,appealsfromtheorderofthetrialcourtgrantingdefendantsmotiontodismiss @*%* thecomplaintforfailuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegrantedpursuanttoRule12.02(6) ,+|&+ ofTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure. ,h',   Initscomplaint,_Trau_ԄMeddescribesitselfasa PhysicianPracticeManagementCompany. -T(- _Trau_ԄMedentersintomanagementagreementstoprovideadministrativeservicestophysicians -@).) "z "8  XXdXXd8 "  providingmedicalcaretothepublic,includingindigentpersonswithpersonalinjuryclaims.One  sourceof_Trau_ԄMedsbusinessisinreferralsfromattorneyswhorepresentpersonswhoareinjured  andunabletoaffordprivatemedicalcareorarenotcoveredbyhealthinsurance.OnNovember  10,1998,TrauMedbroughtsuitagainstAllstateandfourofitsemployees,_Vickie_ԀHarris,Charles t D._Ferrell_,LeslieJohnson,andRon_Iden_,intheCircuitCourtofShelbyCounty,allegingthat ` defendantsattemptedtoanddidruinanddestroy_Trau_ԄMedsreputationandbusiness._Trau_ԄMeds L  complaintincludedsevencountsagainstthedefendantsasfollows:CountI,tortiousinterference 8  with_Trau_ԄMedsbusinesswithamaliciousandintentionalmotivetodestroyand/ordamagethe $ t businessandtocause_Trau_ԄMedfinancialloss;CountII,intentionalinterferencewithprospective  ` economicadvantage;CountIII,abuseofcivilprocess;CountIV,willful,intentional,deliberate,  L  purposefulactioncausing_Trau_ԄMedtolosebusiness;CountV,engaginginaconspiracyforthe  8  purposeofdestroyingPlaintiffsreputationandbusiness;CountVI,violationof18USC $  1962(c)(d)oftheFederalRacketeerInfluenceandCorruptOrganizationsAct;andCountVII,   violationofT.C.A.3912204(c)(d).     _Trau_ԄMedallegesthatinacasestyled_Lendora_ԀJonesv.JamesColman,Allstateemployed   attorneystorepresentitsinsured.Thereafter,Allstate,thoughnotapartytothelitigation,instigated p andcausedamotionin_limine_Ԁtobefiledallegingthat_Trau_ԄMedisengagedinthepracticeof \ medicineandinprovidingphysicaltherapyservicesinviolationofTennesseelaws.Thecomplaint H aversthatdefendantsactionwasforthesolepurposeofdamagingand/ordestroying_Trau_ԄMeds 4 lawfulbusiness.Throughfilings,Allstatesoughttocontrolclaimantswithpersonalinjuriesincurred  p inautomobilecollisionswheresuchclaimantshadsufferedlegitimateinjuriesandwerenotableto  \ affordmedicalcare._Trau_ԄMedclaimsthatbydestroyingand/orclosingplaintiffsbusiness,and H similarbusinesses,Allstatewillhavedestroyedabusinessthatprovidedindigentclientswithneeded 4 medicalcare.     _Trau_ԄMedscomplaintfurtherallegesthatAllstateprovidedadefensetootheractions_# #  1      _Ԁin  ShelbyCountyCircuitCourtandinsuchcasesdefendantscausedsimilarmotionstobefiled.  PlaintiffallegesthattheattorneysforAllstates_insureds_ԀatAllstatesinstructionsmaderepeatedand  redundantdiscoveryrequestsdesignedtodamageand/ordestroy_Trau_ԄMedsbusiness.Inaddition, l _Trau_ԄMedclaimeddamagestoitsreputationbasedonthefactthatAllstatesactionreceivedwide X  publicationinthelegalprofession,especiallywithattorneyswhorepresentinjuredclaimants;that D! Allstatehadcauseddamagethroughintimidationbyraisingconcernwithattorneysaboutthe 0"  proprietyof_Trau_ԄMedsbusiness;andthatAllstatehadcreateda hitlistofclinicsand/or #l! organizationswithPlaintiffsnameincludedwiththeintenttodestroythoselistedentitiesand $X" damaged_Trau_ԄMedbycirculatingthislistamongitsemployees,includingallofthedefendantsin $D # theinstantaction. %0!$   OnDecember11,1998,thedefendantsfiledamotiontodismissforfailuretostateaclaim &"% uponwhichreliefcanbegrantedor,inthealternative,tostrikeportionsofplaintiffscomplaint.On '#& August17,1999,thetrialcourtorderedthatCountsI,IV,V,andVIofplaintiffscomplaintbe (#' dismissed.BythesameorderCountsIIandVIIweredismisseduponoralnoticeofvoluntary  dismissalpursuanttoRule41.01oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure.OnNovember12,  1999,thetrialcourtreverseditselfanddismissedCountIIIofplaintiffscomplaint,thereby  dismissingallofplaintiffscomplaintnotdismissedbytheorderofAugust17,1999. t   TrauMedappeals,raisingoneissueasstatedinitsbrief: L  8  8`   Didthetrialcourtcommiterrorwhenthecourtgranteddefendants $ t Rule12.02(b)motiontodismissforfailuretostateaclaimupon  ` whichreliefcanbegrantedanddismissedCountI,tortious  L  interferencewithbusiness;CountIII,abuseofcivilprocess,and  8  CountV,conspiracy,ofplaintiffscomplaint.$ ` x` x   Adeterminationofwhetheracomplaintstatesaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted   obviouslyrequiresthatthecourtconsideronlytheallegationsofthecomplaint. See_Wolcotts_   FinancialServices,Inc.v._McReynolds_ ,807S.W.2d708(Tenn.Ct.App.1990).   #X>,XXX # X>,XXX>,  In Humphriesv.WestEndTerrace,Inc. ,795S.W.2d128(Tenn.Ct.App.1990),thisCourt \ said: F 8  8`   AmotiontodismisspursuanttoRule12.02(6),Tenn.R.Civ.P.,for j failuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegrantedisthe T equivalentofademurrerunderourformercommonlawprocedure > and,thus,isatestofthesufficiencyoftheleadingpleading. (  Cornpropstv.Sloan ,528S.W.2d188,190,93A.L.R.3d979(Tenn.  1975).Suchamotionadmitsthetruthofallrelevantandmaterial  avermentscontainedinthecomplaintbutassertsthatsuchfactsdo  notconstituteacauseofaction. Cornpropst ,528S.W.2dat190.A  complaintshouldnotbedismisseduponsuchmotion unlessit j appearsbeyonddoubtthattheplaintiffcanprovenosetoffactsin T supportofhisclaimthatwouldentitlehimtorelief. Fuerstv. >  MethodistHospitalSouth ,566S.W.2d847,848(Tenn.1978).In (!x consideringwhethertodismissacomplaintforfailuretostateaclaim "b  uponwhichreliefcanbegranted,thecourtshouldconstruethe "L! complaintliberallyinfavoroftheplaintifftakingallofthe #6" allegationsoffactthereinastrue. Huckebyv.Spangler ,521S.W.2d $ # 568,571(Tenn.1975).% !$` x` x  Id. at130. SeealsoRiggsv._Burson_ ,941S.W.2d44(Tenn.1997).Amotiontodismissbrought '"& pursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)forfailuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted x(#' testsonlythelegalsufficiencyofthecomplaint,andnotthestrengthofplaintiffsproof. Bellexrel. b)$( Snyderv._Icard_,Merrill,Cullis,_Timm_,_Furen_Ԁand_Ginsburg_,P.A., 986S.W.2d550,554(Tenn. L*%) 1999). 6+&*   ,p'+ #X>,XX X>,+#$X>,XXX>,  #X>,XX$X>,r5#XXXX>,WewilladdressCountsI,III,andVofplaintiffscomplaintseparately.CountIof_Trau_Ԅ  Medscomplaintchargesdefendantwithtortiousinterferencewith_Trau_ԄMedsbusinesswitha  maliciousandintentionalmotivetodestroyand/ordamagethebusinessandtocauseplaintiffs  financialloss. t #X>,XXX5#$X>,XXX>,  #X>,XX$X>,7#XXXX>, AlthoughTennesseeCourtshavenotrecognizedthetortofinterferencewithprospective L  economicadvantage, seeNelsonv.Martin, 958S.W.2d643(Tenn.1997); andShahrdarv.Global 8  Housing,Inc., 983S.W.2d230(Tenn.Ct.App1996),thetortofinterferencewithabusiness $ t relationshipisacognizableclaiminTennessee.In NewLifeCorp.ofAmericav.ThomasNelson,  ` Inc., 932S.W.2d921,(Tenn.Ct.App.1996)asellerallegedthatabuyerinduceditschiefofficer  L  andpresidenttoperformworkforthebuyersbenefitwhileemployedbytheseller,constituting  8  breachofemploymentcontractandinterferencewithanexistingbusinessrelation.This  Court $  reversedthetrialcourtsordergrantingsummaryjudgment,statingthatplaintiffhadprovided   affidavitscreatingagenuineissueofmaterialfactastowhetherdefendantscontactswithplaintiffs   employeeconstitutedaninterferencewithplaintiffsbusiness.Insoruling,the  Courtstated:   8  8`   In _Kan_ԀConst.&CleaningCorp.v._Tatum_, No.01A019304CV p 00150,1993WL434741(Tenn.Ct.App.Oct.27,1993)theCourt \ stated:H` x` x 8  8`   8 ` x` xTheelementsofthetortofinterferencewithbusiness  p relationsarealsosetoutin45Am._Jur_.2d  \ Interference50(1969).H   8  8`   8 ` x` x8  Thebasicelementswhichestablisha   primafacietortiousinterferencewith   abusinessrelationshiparethe  existenceofavalidbusinessrelation  (notnecessarilyevidencedbyan  enforceablecontract)orexpectancy; l knowledgeoftherelationshipor X  expectancyonthepartofthe D! _interferer_;anintentionalinterference 0"  inducingorcausingabreachor #l! terminationoftherelationshipor $X" expectancy;andresultantdamageto $D # thepartywhoserelationshipor %0!$ expectancyhasbeendisrupted.&"% 8  8`   8 ` x` x Id. at*4. (#'   NewLifeCorp.ofAmerica ,932S.W.2dat927. Maliceorillwillmustbeestablishedinorder |*%) torecoverfortortiousinterferencewithanother'sbusiness. Testermanv.Tragesser, 789S.W.2d h+&* 553,556(Tenn.Ct.App.1989)(citing Lannv.ThirdNat.BankinNashville ,198Tenn.70,277  S.W.2d439(1955)).In Collinsv.GreeneCountyBank, 916S.W.2d941(Tenn.Ct.App.1995)  theEasternSectionoftheTennesseeCourtofAppealsreversedthetrialcourtsordergranting  defendantsummaryjudgmentontheissueoftortiousinterferencewithplaintiffsbusiness t relationship.In Collins, theplaintiffallegedthatthedefendantbank,throughitsagentsand ` employees,_tortiously_Ԁdestroyedthe  relationshipbetweenhimselfandathirdpartybytellingthethird L  party thatplaintiffwasstealinghimblindandcarrying[him]off. Id. at946.Theplaintiff 8  claimedthat,asaresultofdefendantbankscomments,thethirdpartywouldnotassistplaintiffin $ t securingaloan,wouldnotpledgemorecollateraltoallowtheplaintifftoborrowmoremoney,and  ` evictedplaintiffsbusinessfromhisproperty. Id. The Collins Courtfoundthattherewasadispute  L  ofmaterialfactastowhethertheallegedinterferencewaswithanexistingbusinessrelationshipand  8  remandedthecasetodetermineiftherequisiteelementsofthetortexisted. Id. at94647. $    CountIof_Trau_ԄMedscomplaintchargesdefendantswithtortiousinterferencewith   plaintiffsbusinesswithamaliciousandintentionalmotivetodestroyand/ordamagethebusiness.   _Trau_ԄMedclaimsthatdefendantengagedinaschemeand/orfraudandusedtortlitigation,inwhich   neithertheinstantplaintiffordefendantswereparties,asavehicletoattackplaintiffsbusinessand p causeotherpersonstonotreferpersonstoplaintiffsclinic. \   Uponareviewofthecomplaintwefindtheessentialallegationspresenttoestablishaclaim 4 oftortiousinterferencewithabusinessrelationship._Trau_ԄMedscomplaintaversthatanexisting  p businessrelationshipexistsbetweenitandattorneyswhorepresentindigentclaimantsinjuredin  \ automobileaccidents._Trau_ԄMedallegesthatsuchexistingrelationshipssufferedasaconsequence H ofAllstatesintimidationofattorneys,claimantsandotherswhohavebecomefearfulofusing 4 _Trau_ԄMedsfacilities._Trau_ԄMedaversthatdefendantsconspiredamongthemselvestodestroyits   business,andthata hitlistwascirculatedamongemployeesnamingplaintiffsbusinessasatarget   fordestruction.Webelievethatthefactsallegedin_Trau_ԄMedscomplaint,takeninalightmost  favorableto_Trau_ԄMed,stateaclaimfortortiousinterferencewithabusinessrelationship.  Accordingly,wereversethetrialcourtsdismissalofCountIof_Trau_ԄMedscomplaint.Insoruling,  wereiteratethatwearelimitedtothefaceof_Trau_ԄMedscomplaintonthisappeal.Wemakeno l rulingastowhetherbusinessrelationshipsactuallyexistedbetween_Trau_ԄMedandattorneys X  representingindigentclaimantsorwhethersuchrelationshipswereasourceofbusinessfor_Trau_Ԅ D! Med,leavingthosequestionstobeaddressedonremand,alongwithwhethertheotherelementsof 0"  thistortexist. #l!   CountIIIof_Trau_ԄMedscomplaintchargesthedefendantswithabuseofprocessincausing $D # multipleandrepetitivesubpoenastobeissuedto_Trau_ԄMedsofficersinordertoobtaininformation %0!$ forthepurposeofdestroyinganddamaging_Trau_ԄMedsbusinessandtoharass_Trau_ԄMedsofficers &"% andemployees.Inaddition,_Trau_ԄMedaversthatdefendantscausedpleadingscontainingfalse '#& allegationsagainst_Trau_ԄMedandBellevueClinictobefiledinactionswheredefendanthad (#' providedrepresentationforthedefenseofitsinsured._Trau_ԄMedallegesthatsuchactionscaused )$( unnecessarylegalcostsindefendingitselfagainstunwarrantedandbaselessclaimsandconstitutes |*%) anabuseofcivilprocessbythedefendants. h+&* Ї  In #X>,XXX8# X>,XXX>,Bellexrel.Snyderv._Icard_,Merrill,Cullis,_Timm_,_Furen_Ԁand_Ginsburg_,P.A., 986  S.W.2d550,554(Tenn.1999)t#X>,XX X>,Y#XXXX>,heTennesseeSupremeCourtdefinedtherequirementsofthetort,  abuseofprocess,bycomparingittoanothersimilartort,maliciousprosecution,statinginpart:  8  8`    InTennesseetherearetwotortactionswhichmaybebrought d toobtainredressfortheallegedmisuseoflegalprocessbyanother: P  maliciousprosecutionandabuseofprocess. Donaldsonv. <  Donaldson, 557S.W.2d60,62(Tenn.1977); Priestv.Union ( x Agency, 174Tenn.304,125S.W.2d142,143(1939).Tomakeout  d aclaimformaliciousprosecution,aplaintiffmustshowthatthe  P  defendantmaliciouslybroughtapriorsuitagainsthimorherwithout  <  probablecause,andthatthepriorsuitwasterminatedinfavorofthe (  plaintiff. Robertsv.FederalExpressCorp., 842S.W.2d246,248   (Tenn.1992).ToestablishaclaimforabuseofprocessinTennessee,   asinamajorityofotherjurisdictions,twoelementsmustbealleged:   "(1)theexistenceofanulteriormotive;and(2)anactintheuseof   processotherthansuchaswouldbeproperintheregularprosecution t ofthecharge." Priest ,174Tenn.at307,125S.W.2dat143(internal ` quotationsandcitationsomitted);1_Am.Jur_.2dAbuseofProcess L 5(1994).8` x` x 8  8`    Abuseofprocessdiffersfrommaliciousprosecutioninthat ` abuseofprocesslies"fortheimproperuseofprocessafterithasbeen L issued,notformaliciouslycausingprocesstoissue." Priest, 174 8 Tenn.at306,125S.W.2dat143(emphasisadded)(internalcitations $ andquotationsomitted); seealso Restatement(Second)ofTorts  682(1977)("Thesubsequentmisuseoftheprocess,thoughproperly  obtained,constitutesthemisconductforwhichtheliabilityis  imposed....");FowlerV.Harperetal.,TheLawofTorts4.9at4:84  (3rded.1995)("Theactionisnotforthewrongfulbringingofan p actionorprosecution,butfortheimproperuse,orrather'abuse,'of \  processinconnectiontherewith....");W.Page_Keeton_Ԁetal.,_Prosser_ H! and_Keeton_ԀontheLawofTorts121at897(5thed.1984)("[_T]he_ 4"  gistofthetortisnotcommencinganactionorcausingprocessto  #p! issuewithoutjustification,butmisusing,ormisapplyingprocess  $\" justifiedinitselfforanendotherthanthatwhichitwasdesignedto $H # accomplish[footnoteomitted].").%4!$` x` x 8  8`    AsthisCourtemphasizedin Priest, ' #&` x` x 8  8`   8 ` x` x  Thetestastowhetherthereisanabuseof )$( processiswhethertheprocesshasbeenusedto *%) accomplishsomeendwhichiswithouttheregular l+&* purviewoftheprocess,orwhichcompelstheparty  againstwhomitisusedtodosomecollateralthing  whichhecouldnotlegallyandregularlybecompelled  todo.t   8  8`   174Tenn.at307,125S.W.2dat144...."Theimproperpurpose L  usuallytakestheformofcoerciontoobtainacollateraladvantage, 8  notproperlyinvolvedintheproceedingitself,suchasthesurrender $ t ofpropertyorthepaymentofmoney,bytheuseoftheprocessasa  ` threatoraclub."_Keeton_Ԁetal.,supra121at898. L ` x` x 8  8`       ` x` x Ѐ Bell ,986S.W.2d555.Insum,theexistenceofanulteriormotiveandanactintheuseofprocess,   otherthanaswouldbeproperintheregularprosecutionofacharge,arerequirementsforsustaining   anactionforabuseofprocess. Blackv._Stulberg_, No.1393,1991WL83334,*6(Tenn.Ct.App.   May22,1991).Legitimateuseofprocess,althoughmadewithanulteriormotive,isnotanabuse   ofprocess. Id. (citationomitted). p   Inreviewing_Trau_ԄMedscomplaintwedisagreewithitscontentionthatthecomplaintis H sufficienttostateaclaimforabuseofprocess._Trau_ԄMedclaimsthatdefendantsactions,through 4 itshiredattorneysissuingsubpoenasrequestingduplicatedocumentationandfilingmotionsmaking  p falseallegations,supportaclaimofabuseofprocessbydefendants.Although_Trau_ԄMeddoes  \ assignanulteriormotivetothedefendants,asindicatedbytheforegoingauthorities,suchmotive H isnotenoughtosubstantiateaclaimwithoutamisuseoftheprocess.Theactionsonthepartofthe 4 defendantarerightfullyattributabletothedefenseofitsinsured. Anactionforabuseofprocess   liesfortheuseoflegalprocesstoobtainaresultitwasnotintendedtoeffect,forawrongpurpose.    Donaldsonv.Donaldson ,557S.W.2d60,62(Tenn.1977).Takingastruetheallegationthat  defendantsharboredamaliciousmotiveinissuingsubpoenasandinfilingpleadings,thereisno  allegationofawrongfuluse.Accordingly,weupholdthetrialcourtsdismissalCountIIIof_Trau_Ԅ  Medscomplaint.   l   CountVofTrauMedscomplaintallegesthatAllstate,togetherwithitsagents/employees D! haveengagedinaconspiracytodestroyplaintiffsreputation,business,andclinic.TrauMedavers 0"  thatAllstatesemployeeshaveattackedBellevueClinicbyinformingtheattorneysrepresenting #l! claimantsthattheyare outtogetBellevueorwordstosimilareffect._Trau_ԄMedstatesthatAllstate $X" namedBellevueClinicona hitlistcirculatedamongAllstatesagents/employees._Trau_ԄMed $D # allegesthatAllstatesattorneys,indefendingitsinsured,conspiredinusingcivilprocesswiththe %0!$ intentofdamagingand/ordestroyingplaintiffsbusiness. p  &"%   Damagesforaconspiracytoinjureordamageanothersbusinessisanactionablewrongin '#& Tennessee. Bakerv._Battershell_, 1986WL7602(Tenn.Ct.App.July9,1986).The Baker Court (#' stated: )$(   |*%) 8  8`   Thecourtin NashvilleMemorialHospital,Inc.v._Binkley_ ,534   S.W.2d318(Tenn.1976),discussedtheelementsofthistort:` x` x 8  8`   8 ` x` x  Everyonehastherighttoestablishand t conductalawfulbusinessorengageinalawful ` profession,andisentitledtotheprotectionof L  organizedsociety,throughitscourts,wheneverthat 8  rightisunlawfullyinvaded.Anactionablewrongis $ t establishedagainstanyonewhoisshowntohave  ` intentionallyinterferedwiththatright,without  L  justifiablecauseorexcuse.Itis,therefore,an  8  actionablewrongfortwoormorepersonstoconspire $  maliciouslyandwithoutjustificationorexcuseto   injureordamageanotherintheconductofalawful   businessorprofession.    8  8`   534S.W.2dat321.p` x` x  Baker, at*2*3. H   Acivilconspiracyisa combinationbetweentwoormorepersonstoaccomplishbyconcert  p anunlawfulpurpose,ortoaccomplishapurposenotinitselfunlawfulbyunlawfulmeans.  \  _Braswell_Ԁv._Carothers_, 863S.W.2d722,727(Tenn.Ct.App.1993)(quoting _Kirksey_Ԁv._Overton_ H Pub.,Inc., 739S.W.2d230,236(Tenn.Ct.App.1987)(citationomitted)).Acauseofactionfor 4 conspiracyrequiresthattherebeacommondesign,concertofaction,andanovertact. _Braswell_,    863S.W.2dat727(citing _Koehler_Ԁv.Cummings, 380_F.Supp_.1294,1313(_M.D.Tenn_.1974).There   mustalsobeinjurytopersonorpropertyresultinginattendantdamage. _Koehler_, 380_F.Supp_.at  1313.      Inordertosustainanactionforconspiracy,theremustbeanactionableunderlyingclaim,as l  [_i]t_Ԁcannotbethataconspiracytodoathingisactionablewherethethingitselfwouldnotbe. X   Forresterv._Stockstill_, 869_S.W._Ԁ2d328,330(Tenn.1994)(quoting Feltsv.Paradise, 178Tenn. D! 421,158S.W.2d727,729(1942)). 0"     Intheinstantcase,theallegationsofconspiracyinvolvetheactionsofemployeesandagents $X" ofAllstateactingeitherwithinorwithoutthescopeoftheiremployment.Defendantsassertthatthe $D # employees,ofasinglecorporateentityactinginthescopeoftheiremployment,cannotconstitute %0!$ aconspiracywiththeemployerbecausetheiractsaretheactsoftheiremployer,asingleentity. &"% DefendantsassertthatthepreciseissuehasnotbeendealtwithbyTennesseecourts.However,we '#& donotethatthisCourtin Lackeyv.MetropolitanLifeIns.Co. ,30Tenn.App.390,206S.W.2d806 (#' (1947)consideredtheallegationsofaconspiracybetweendefendant,Metropolitan,and itslocal )$( managers,JosephI._Laskey_ԀandW.L._Mousette_,itsassistantmanager,H.G.Bland,itsattorney,Mr. |*%) GarlandS.Moore,andotheragents;andthattheintentofthisconspiracywastoslanderplaintiff, h+&* tohavehimdisbarred,toruinhisbusiness,andtodestroyhisgoodname,character,andreputation  andhisstandingbothasanindividualandasapracticinglawyer. Id. at810.Whilenotspecifically  decidingthequestion,theCourtconcludedthatthedefendant,Metropolitan,couldbeliable,either  uponthetheoryofconspiracyoruponthedoctrineof_respondeat_Ԁsuperior. Id .at817. t   In Johnsonv.Hills&DalesGen.Hosp.,etal ,40F.3d837(6thCir.1994),theCourtsaid: L  8  8`    ThisCourthasheldthatincasesbroughtundersection $ t 1985(3),acorporationcannotconspirewithitsownagentsor  ` employees.In Hullv._Cuyahoga_ԀValleyJointVocationalSch.Dist.  L  Bd.ofEduc., 926F.2d505,510(6thCir.1991),westated: [_I]f_Ԁall  8  ofthedefendantsaremembersofthesamecollectiveentity,thereare $  nottwoseparatepeopletoformaconspiracy.Thisholdingis   generallylabeledthe _intracorporate_Ԁconspiracydoctrine.Although   thepreceptisfrequentlydiscussedintheantitrustfield,seee.g.,    _Copperweld_ԀCorp.v.IndependentTubeCorp., 467U.S.752,104   S.Ct.2731,81_L.Ed_.2d628(1984)and NelsonRadio&SupplyCo. p v.Motorola,Inc. ,200F.2d911(5thCir.1952),itisalsoappliedin \ casesallegingcivilrightsconspiracies.(Citationsomitted.)H` x` x  Id. at83940.  p   Otherjurisdictionshaveappliedthe_intracorporate_Ԁconspiracydoctrinetobaractionswhere H theagentisactingwithinthescopeofhisauthority. See_Renner_Ԁv._Wurdemen_ ,231Neb.8,16,434 4 N.W.2d536,541(1989); Dixonv.Reconciliation,Inc. ,206Neb.45,52,291N.W.2d230,234   (1980); SoftWaterUtilities,Inc.v._LeFevre_ ,159Ind.App.529,308N.E.2d395(1974).     The Johnsonv.Hills&DalesGen.Hosp.,supra, Courtexpressedtheneedtolimitthe  applicationofthedoctrine:    8 `  The_intracorporate_Ԁconspiracydoctrine,ifappliedtoobroadly, X  couldimmunizeallprivateconspiraciesfromredresswheretheactors D! coincidentallywereemployeesofthesamecompany.Awareofthis 0"  possibility,courtshavecreateda scopeofemploymentexception #l! thatrecognizesadistinctionbetweencollaborativeactsdonein $X" pursuitofanemployersbusinessandprivateactsdonebypersons $D # whohappentoworkatthesameplace.%0!$` x` x   (6x3   `    *0 h *0h(#h(#*0(#(#*0p(#(#*0p(#p(#'#&(#(# 8  8`    Finally,corporateactorsmightbebeyondthescopeoftheir )$( employmentwheretheaimoftheconspiracyexceedsthereachof |*%) legitimatecorporateactivity.Courtsshouldbewaryofsituationsin h+&* whichcorporateactorstrytointerferewithaplaintiffs_acess_Ԁto  publicbenefitsorthoseofotherentities....` x` x  Johnson, 40F.3dat840. t   Althoughnotinvolvingtheprecisequestionof_intracorporate_Ԁconspiracy,wefindthecase L  of Forresterv._Stockstill_, 869S.W.2d328(Tenn.1994)tobeinstructive.In Forrester ,ourSupreme 8  Courtdealtwiththequestionofliabilityoftwocorporatedirectorsforallegedinterferencewitha $ t contractualrelationshipbetweentheplaintiffemployeeandthecorporation.Infindingthatthe  ` directorswerenotliableundertheproofintroduced,theCourtsaid:  L  8  8`   [_W]hen_Ԁanofficer,director,oremployeeofacorporationactswithin $  thegeneralrangeofhisauthority,andhisactionsaresubstantially   motivatedbyanintenttofurthertheinterestofthecorporation,in   claimsofintentionalinterferencewithemployment,theactionofthe   officer,director,oremployeeisconsideredtobetheactionofthe   corporationandisentitledtothesameimmunityfromliability.p` x` x  Id. at33435. H    `   TheCourtnotedinreachingitsconclusionsetoutabovethatacauseofactioncouldexist  p againsttheindividuals iftheproofestablishesthattheystoodasthirdpartiestotheemployment  \ relationshipatthetimetheyperformedtheactsfoundtohavecausedForrestersdischarge. Id. at H 331. 4   Weseenoreasonwhythesamerulesshouldnotapplytointerferencewithabusiness   relationshipoutsidethecorporatestructure;thus,intheinstantcasetheindividualscouldbeliable  totheplaintiffunderapropersetoffacts.Theconcertedactionsoftheindividualscouldconstitute  aconspiracyprovidedthattheotherrequiredelementsofthecauseofactionaremet.    _Trau_ԄMedscomplaintallegesthatAllstateanditsagents/employees,representatives,and X  attorneyshaveengagedinaconspiracyforthepurposeofdestroyingplaintiffsreputation;thatthey D! haveattackedtheBellevueClinicinitsdealingwithattorneysrepresentingclaimantsbyinforming 0"  attorneysthattheyare outtogetBellevue;havenamedBellevueClinicona hitlistcirculated #l! amongdefendantsemployees;andhavefiledpleadingsandsoughtmultiplecopiesofdiscovery $X" documentsindefendingtheirinsured,forthesolepurposeofcarryingouttheconspiracyto $D # intimidateanddestroyplaintiffsreputation,businessandclinic.Webelievethat_Trau_ԄMedhas %0!$ sufficientlystatedaclaimforconspiracybasedontheallegedinterferencewithexistingbusiness &"% relationships.However,wedonotagreewithappellantthataclaimforconspiracyisstatedbased '#& ondefendantsactionsindefendingsuitsagainstitsinsured. Therecanbenoconspiracywherethe (#' actscomplainedof,andthemeansemployedinthedoingoftheacts,arelawful,andsolongasthe )$( partiesseekonlytofurthertheirownfairinterests,theywillnotbeliableforanymerelyincidental |*%) damagetoanother. _Breuss_Ԁv._LAudace_,Inc. No.01A0109106CH00236,1992WL9440,*4 h+&* (Tenn.Ct.App.Jan.24,1992)(quoting16_Am.Jur_.2dConspiracy49(1979)(defendantshadnot  conspiredinexercisingtheirlegalrighttocontroltheassetsofthecorporationtoplaintiffs  exclusion); see_alsoEmerson_Ԁv._Machamer_, 221Tenn.739,74546,431S.W.2d283,286(1968)  (filingasuitfordivorcecannotgiverisetoacauseofactionofconspiracysincesuchfilingisa t lawfulact.); andSmokeyMountainsBeverageCo.v.AnheuserBusch,Inc., 182_F.Supp_.326 ` (_E.D.Tenn_.1960)(noconspiracyexistedwheredefendantcorporationhadremovedplaintiffastheir L  eastTennesseedistributorbecausethebusinessjudgementofdefendantwasnottobequestionedby 8  thecourt). $ t   IssuingthesubpoenasandfilingthemotionswerelawfulactsindefenseofAllstatesinsured.  L  Consequently,inviewingthefactsallegedin_Trau_ԄMedscomplaintinalightmostfavorabletothe  8  plaintiff,weconcludethat_Tra_ԄMedhasstatedaclaimforcivilconspiracybasedoninterference $  withanexistingbusinessrelationship.However,theclaimcannotbebasedonlegalactionstaken   bydefendantsindefenseofsuitsagainstitsinsured.Therefore,thetrialcourtsdismissalofCount   Vof_Trau_ԄMedscomplaintisreversed.     Insum,thetrialcourtsorderdismissingCountI,interferencewith_Trau_ԄMedsbusiness, p andCountV,engaginginaconspiracy,isreversed.ThetrialcourtsorderdismissingCountIIIof \ _Trau_ԄMedscomplaintisaffirmed.Thiscaseisremandedforsuchfurtherproceedingsasmaybe H necessary.Costsfortheappealareassessedagainstappellees,AllstateInsuranceCompany,_Vickie_ 4 Harris,CharlesD.Farrell,LeslieJohnsonandRon_Iden_.  p e#X>,XXX[##TXX>, #X>,XT     m     u __________________________________________       m     u W.FRANKCRAWFORD,PRESIDINGJUDGE,W.S.