Contractor's claims for contract interference and defamation dismissed without trial
FACTS OF 2025 Mass Appeals Court case BC Construction Co., Inc. vs Johnson Roberts Associates
JRA architects worked on a public library project in Everett MA with BC Construction. BC submitted change orders at the end of the project increasing project cost.
JRA was hired by another municipality to serve as architect for a fire station project. BC submitted the low bid. The town gathered some negative reviews of BC’s past projects and offered BC a chance to meet and respond. The town then rejected BC’s bid and chose another contractor.
Cambridge looked into BC’s history in considering contractors for a job and a report said “many of [B.C.’s] recently completed projects may have required formal dispute resolution (including mediation and litigation) in order to complete the project”. Cambridge rejected BC’s bid, even as BC won contracts for other municipalities.
BC sued the architect JRA for intentional interference with contractual relations and for defamation. The trial judge dismissed the case and BC appealed.
ISSUE
Was suit properly dismissed where there was no showing of improper motive and where there was a legitimate business purpose for evaluating BC’s standing as a responsible bidder?
RULING
Case was properly dismissed.
REASONS
There was no evidence of improper motive in JRA’s opinions and statements about its experience with BC. There is a conditional privilege to give honest advice, even if otherwise defamatory, where the speaker and the recipient have a common interest in the subject and the statements protect that interest.
Quote from Court opinion:
a municipality selecting a contractor for a construction project would have an interest in knowing the contractor's recent history of seeking payment for similar projects through dispute resolution, including litigation and mediation.
COMMENT
Those who have more experience with resorting to formal dispute resolution can expect more skepticism in seeking new work.