SEMO Services, Inc. v. BNSF Railway Company (2022)

Citation: SEMO Services, Inc. v. BNSF Railway Company (2022)
Parent Document: SEMO Services, Inc. v. BNSF Railway Company (2022)
Jurisdiction: Missouri (state)
Effective Date: 2022-12-13
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10630559/semo-services-inc-v-bnsf-railw... ↗

Full Text

1,157 chars

When alleging economic coercion, SEMO points to the BNSF emails, one occurring
within days of the anonymous call, where BNSF directs RIC to refrain from using subcontractors
and implicitly criticizes RIC for the exorbitant subcontractor billing costs. SEMO points to this
as further evidence of BNSF pressuring RJC to discontinue using subcontractors ike SEMO, As
the emails confirm, BNSF was displeased that RJC was delegating considerable work to
subcontractors when BNSF believed RJC should be performing this work. Further, this was
driving up costs for BNSF. Arguably, BNSF had a right to protect its business interests and,
equally, had an economic interest in the RIC/SEMO arrangement because BNSF was ultimately
paying for the work on its property. Thus, BNSF’s actions do not constitute improper means
because BNSF has a right to interfere with another’s “business expectancy to protect [its] own
economic interests.” Cmty. Title Co, 796 8.W.2d at 372. When maintaining an economic interest
such as a contract or any financial concern, a defendant is privileged to interfere with another’s
business expectancy to protect that economic interest. /d.

Other Sections in This Document (92)

Full Text