Skip to main content

Southern Union Co. v. Southwest Gas Corp.

D. Ariz.August 1, 2003No. CV991294-PHXROSCited 7 times
Plaintiff WinJames Irvin$60,000,000 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Silver
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
jury verdict
State
Arizona

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Plaintiff Southern Union Company prevailed on claims for intentional interference with business expectancy and contractual relations, obtaining a $60 million punitive damages award against Arizona Corporation Commissioner James Irvin. The court upheld the punitive damages award against the defendant's post-trial motions.

What This Ruling Means

**Southern Union Co. v. Southwest Gas Corp.: $60 Million Award for Business Interference** This case involved Southern Union Company, which accused Arizona Corporation Commissioner James Irvin of wrongfully interfering with their business relationships and contracts. Southern Union claimed that Irvin intentionally disrupted their business dealings and harmed their ability to maintain important business partnerships. The court sided with Southern Union Company and awarded them $60 million in punitive damages. The judge found that Irvin had indeed intentionally interfered with Southern Union's business relationships and contracts in a way that caused significant harm. When Irvin tried to challenge this decision after the trial, the court upheld the massive damages award. **What This Means for Workers:** While this case involved a dispute between a company and a government official rather than typical workplace issues, it demonstrates that courts will impose serious financial consequences when someone in a position of authority wrongfully interferes with business relationships. For workers, this reinforces that legal protections exist against interference with employment relationships and business dealings. It shows that courts take these interference claims seriously and are willing to award substantial damages when wrongdoing is proven.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Celia G. Zimmerman v. Direct Federal Credit Union and David Breslin
1st CircuitSep 2001
Plaintiff Win
Small ex rel. National Labor Relations Board v. Operative Plasterers' & Cement Masons' International Ass'n Local 200
9th CircuitJul 2010
Defendant Win
Allison
Ind. Ct. App.Mar 2008
Mixed Result
Combs
N.C. Ct. App.Mar 2010

<bold>1. Employer and Employee — wrongful discharge</bold> <bold>— reporting misconduct to management — evidence</bold> <bold>sufficient</bold> <block_quote> The trial court erred by granting defendants' motion for directed verdict on a claim for the wrongful discharge of an at-will employee where the claim was based upon a retaliatory termination after plaintiff reported to management that the company was withholding negative account balance statements from customers, transferring the monies to a separate account, and continuing to invoice customers in violation of N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>14-100</cross_reference> (obtaining property by false pretenses).</block_quote> <bold>2. Employer and Employee — tortious interference</bold><bold>with contract — termination — wrongful purpose</bold><bold>— evidence sufficient</bold> <block_quote> The trial court erred by granting defendants' motion for directed verdict on a claim for tortious interference with a contract by defendant Smith where plaintiff reported misconduct<page_number>Page 76</page_number> within the company to Smith and was later terminated. Plaintiff forecasted more than a scintilla of evidence that he was terminated for a wrongful purpose.</block_quote> <bold>3. Appeal and Error — preservation of issues</bold><bold>— argument not raised</bold> <block_quote> Plaintiff was deemed to have abandoned an argument on appeal that a corporation ratified the acts of a supervisor in a wrongful termination suit. Plaintiff did not raise the issue in his brief, cite authority, or point to evidence in the record.</block_quote> <bold>4. Unfair Trade Practices — employment dispute</bold><bold>— not an un-fair or deceptive trade practice</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err by granting defendants' motion for a directed verdict on plaintiffs claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices after an alleged retaliatory firing. The case involved a simple employment dispute and did not fall with

Plaintiff Win
Robert Steinbuch v. University of Arkansas
Ark.Dec 2019
Defendant Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.