Article

Note: Ford Motor Company ("Ford") finances vehicle service contracts ("VSCs") in connection with the sale of its cars. On January 1, 2005, Ford changed its policy toward these VSCs, preventing the sale of any VSC not insured by an insurance company with at least an A- stability rating. Prior to this policy change, Marathon Financial Insurance Company, Inc. ("Marathon") insured VSCs sold by Automotive Professionals, Inc. ("API"). Marathon did not have an A- rating or higher and was unable to obtain one. Consequently, it offered to provide standby LCs to secure its obligations on the VSCs that it insured. Ford turned down this offer "because it did not believe that it had the manpower or skill set to monitor the letter of credit adequately or to review Marathon's financial status periodically."

Marathon sued Ford for tortious interference with contractual relations and tortious interference with prospective business relations. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Folsom, J., dismissed the latter claim and later granted Ford's motion for summary judgment on the former. Marathon appealed on ground, inter alia, that district court had misallocated burden of proof on justification issue. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Engelhardt, Higginbotham, and Stewart, JJ., in an opinion by Stewart, J., affirmed.

[JEB/jdc]

COPYRIGHT OF THE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL BANKING LAW & PRACTICE

The views expressed in this Case Summary are those of the Institute of International Banking Law and Practice and not necessarily those of ICC or the other partners in DC-PRO.