Interesting Tennessee case on third party interference with contracts

Thanks to the Tennessee Business Litigation Law Blog and Day on Torts for the lead to this case on third party interference with contractual rights. I am unaware of any similar reported case in Indiana. However, I think think the reasoning ought to be persuasive here.

First, the Tennessee court established that a difference existed between a parent corporation and a subsidiary:

In a tortious interference claim, a parent corporation and its subsidiary will usually not share an identity of interests when the subsidiary is not wholly-owned because the interests of the majority shareholder are often different from and antagonistic to the interests of the minority shareholders. Because of the competing nature of their interests, Tennessee law protects minority shareholders from majority shareholders. Under Tennessee law, a majority shareholder owes a fiduciary duty to minority shareholders.

Second, the Tennessee court noted that one cannot be liable for interfering with one's own contract.

Then, the court examined the policy underlying that rule:

But when the parent is not the sole shareholder, the interests of the parent and the subsidiary will not always be identical. This distinction is crucial because the whole issue of extending the qualified privilege depends on a complete identity of interest, such that two separate entities are treated as one. When the interests of a parent and subsidiary are not identical, the reason for treating them as the same entity disappears. In that case, the parent should not be considered a
party to the contract so as to protect it from liability for interference with contract.