For Nebraska businesses, tortious interference claims often start with a practical problem. The first measurable snow of the season is in the forecast, and the owner of an Omaha commercial snow-removal company is walking the equipment yard, checking plow blades and salt inventory. A certified letter arrives that afternoon. The property manager for six retail centers, the company’s largest account, is canceling the second year of a three-year contract. A few weeks earlier, the company’s former operations manager went to work for a competitor, and the property manager now has a bid from that competitor on the desk. The owner wants to know whether this is ordinary competition or something the law will remedy. Nebraska law answers that question, and the answer depends on specific rules the Nebraska Supreme Court has refined as recently as 2026.
If a competitor, former employee, or outside party has caused a customer, vendor, or partner to walk away from a deal with your business, Horgan Law LLC can help. Contact us at 402-965-0652 or visit horganlawfirm.com/contact-us.
What Is Tortious Interference Under Nebraska Law?
Nebraska tortious interference claims let a business recover from an outsider who intentionally and unjustifiably causes a customer, vendor, or partner to break off a contract or business relationship. The claim targets conduct that goes beyond fair competition.
In more detail, tortious interference is a civil claim against an outsider who intentionally and unjustifiably disrupts a contract or business relationship between two other parties. Nebraska recognizes two versions: interference with an existing contract, and interference with a business relationship or expectancy that has not yet become a contract. The second version protects less than the first.
The Nebraska Supreme Court laid out both theories in Bar at the Yard v. Friends Family, 321 Neb. 606 (2026), a dispute between two businesses selling drinks near Memorial Stadium in Lincoln on football Saturdays. The court explained that a business’s interest in prospective economic advantage receives less protection than its enforceable contract rights. That distinction shapes almost every case a Nebraska business might bring. (For background on the tort and its history in Nebraska, see our earlier overview of tortious interference in Nebraska. This post covers the 2026 Nebraska Supreme Court decisions that refined the rules.)
What Must a Business Prove in Nebraska Tortious Interference Claims?
A Nebraska plaintiff must prove five elements. In Bar at the Yard, the Nebraska Supreme Court restated them:
- A valid business relationship or expectancy existed.
- The interferer knew about that relationship or expectancy.
- The interferer committed an unjustified, intentional act of interference.
- The interference caused the harm.
- The business whose relationship was disrupted suffered damages.
The court added a further requirement. The defendant’s intentional act must have induced or caused a breach or termination of the relationship. A relationship that grew strained, but survived, does not support the claim.
Is Interference With a Contract Treated Differently From Interference With a Prospective Deal?
Yes. Nebraska follows the contract-interference theory described in section 766 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which covers an outsider who induces or otherwise causes a party not to perform its contract. A signed agreement gives the plaintiff a fixed legal entitlement, so courts protect it more strongly. A prospective deal, such as a customer you expected to keep or a bid you expected to win, is still protected, but competitors have far more room to pursue it.
Does Nebraska Recognize a Claim When Interference Only Makes a Contract More Expensive?
No. In Green Plains Trade Group v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., 320 Neb. 882 (2026), the Nebraska Supreme Court declined to adopt section 766A of the Restatement. That section would impose liability on someone who makes it harder or more costly for the plaintiff to perform its own contract. A Nebraska business whose costs went up because of an outsider’s conduct must look to other legal theories. A tortious interference claim in Nebraska requires a breach or termination of the relationship itself.
Is Signing a Deal With Someone Already Under Contract Enough to Create Liability?
Not by itself. This is one of the most important lessons from Bar at the Yard. A bar near Memorial Stadium had a lease that, it claimed, gave it the exclusive right to sell alcohol in a shared common area. The landlord then let a neighboring restaurant sell drinks through windows into that same area on home game days. The bar sued the restaurant for interfering with its lease.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the restaurant. The court held that merely entering into an agreement with knowledge that the other party cannot perform both that agreement and an existing contract does not amount to inducement. Inducement requires conduct that “operates on the mind” of the contracting party and persuades it to choose one course over another. An offer of unusually favorable terms designed to pull a party out of its existing contract can qualify. Ordinary dealing, standing alone, does not.
The bar also lost because it had no evidence of how the restaurant’s agreement with the landlord came about. The court said a fact finder could only speculate about whether the restaurant had induced the landlord. Speculation does not create a genuine issue of material fact.
For the snow-removal owner in the opening scenario, the lesson is practical. Proof that the competitor knew about the contract is a start. The case gets stronger with evidence of what the competitor said or offered to the property manager, and when.
When Is Interference “Unjustified” in Nebraska?
Nebraska courts decide whether interference was unjustified by weighing seven factors from section 767 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. The Nebraska Supreme Court adopted that balancing test in Huff v. Swartz, 258 Neb. 820, 606 N.W.2d 461 (2000). The factors are:
- The nature of the actor’s conduct.
- The actor’s motive.
- The interests of the party whose relationship was disrupted.
- The interests the actor sought to advance.
- The social interest in protecting freedom of action against the contractual interests at stake.
- How close or remote the actor’s conduct was to the interference.
- The relationship between the parties.
Huff also held that malice is not an element of the claim. A spiteful motive can weigh heavily toward a finding of unjustified interference, but it is generally insufficient on its own.
Can an Employee or Officer Be Liable for Interfering With the Company’s Own Relationships?
Usually not. Huff held that a coemployee acting within the scope of the employer’s lawful purposes is not a third party to the employer’s relationships and cannot “interfere” with them. Liability can arise when the coemployee acts for personal benefit or for the benefit of some entity other than the employer. That distinction often decides claims against a former manager who left to join a rival.
Is Competition a Defense to a Tortious Interference Claim in Nebraska?
Yes, and it is the defense Nebraska businesses encounter most often. In Dick v. Koski Professional Group, P.C., 307 Neb. 599 (2020), the Nebraska Supreme Court held that valid competition, including persuading third parties to do business with oneself rather than with a competitor, is justified and cannot support a tortious interference claim. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the defendant’s conduct falls outside the competitor’s privilege.
Under the test the court applied in Dick and again in Bar at the Yard, a competitor is privileged to win away business when four conditions are met:
- The relationship concerns a matter involved in the competition between the two businesses.
- The competitor does not use improper means.
- The competitor does not intend to create or continue an illegal restraint of competition.
- The competitor’s purpose is at least partly to advance its own competitive interest.
What Counts as “Improper Means”?
Nebraska appellate courts have not reduced improper means to a fixed list. The Nebraska Trade Secrets Act offers a useful statutory reference point. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 87-502(1) defines improper means to include theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, and espionage. Conduct of that kind, such as lying to a customer about a rival’s finances or using a stolen customer list, moves a case away from fair competition.
The Bar at the Yard court rejected the bar’s improper-means arguments. Selling only during peak football hours was, in the court’s view, a strategic business decision and a form of valid competition. A business that wants to overcome the competitor’s privilege needs evidence of conduct beyond aggressive selling.
What Damages and Other Remedies Are Available?
A successful plaintiff recovers the harm the interference caused. Under the Restatement section Nebraska follows for contract interference, liability extends to the pecuniary loss resulting from the third party’s failure to perform. Causation and damages are separate elements, so a business must connect the defendant’s conduct to a specific lost contract, customer, or deal, and then prove the dollar consequences with evidence rather than estimates.
Ongoing interference can also justify court orders. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1063 permits a temporary injunction when a defendant’s continuing conduct during the lawsuit would cause great or irreparable injury, or would render a judgment ineffectual. A business losing customers week by week should raise injunctive relief with counsel early, because the strongest evidence of urgency is fresh.
When a former employee or competitor uses confidential information to divert business, a trade secret claim often belongs alongside the interference claim. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 87-502 defines misappropriation, and the two claims carry different deadlines, as discussed below.
How Long Does a Nebraska Business Have to File a Tortious Interference Claim?
Four years, under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207(3), which covers actions for injury to the rights of the plaintiff not arising on contract. The clock starts when the breach occurs.
In Hroch v. Farmland Industries, Inc., 4 Neb. App. 709, 548 N.W.2d 367 (1996), a demolition subcontractor working at an Omaha grain terminal sued the terminal’s owner that allegedly caused the general contractor to cancel his subcontract. The Nebraska Court of Appeals held that a claim for interference with a contract accrues when the contract is breached, not when the plaintiff later receives written confirmation or learns the full story. The court also held that section 25-207 contains no discovery rule for tortious interference. The subcontractor filed four years after his formal termination letter, but more than four years after the cancellation itself, and his claim was barred.
A trade secret claim follows a different rule. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 87-506 gives a plaintiff four years after the misappropriation is discovered, or by reasonable diligence should have been discovered. A business with both claims should calendar the earlier deadline.
What Should a Nebraska Business Do When It Suspects Interference?
Start by preserving evidence. Save the cancellation notice, emails and texts with the customer, and any messages from the competitor or former employee. Write down what the customer said about why it left, with dates. Identify any employment, nonsolicitation, or confidentiality agreements the former employee signed.
Next, compare the facts to the elements. Ask whether there was a signed contract or only an expected relationship, whether the outsider did more than make a better offer, and whether there is proof of improper means. Those answers determine whether the claim can survive a motion for summary judgment, which is where Bar at the Yard ended.
Horgan Law LLC represents Omaha and Nebraska businesses in commercial disputes through our business and complex litigation practice. When the dispute grows out of a customer contract, partnership, or employee agreement, our business law team reviews the underlying documents before a claim is filed.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between tortious interference with contract and with a business expectancy in Nebraska?
Interference with contract protects an existing, enforceable agreement. Interference with a business expectancy protects a prospective relationship not yet reduced to contract, such as an expected customer renewal. The Nebraska Supreme Court has held that prospective economic advantage receives less protection than enforceable contract rights.
Can I sue a competitor for taking my customers in Nebraska?
Only if the competitor went beyond valid competition. Nebraska treats persuading customers to switch as privileged, and the business bringing the claim must prove the competitor used improper means, intended an illegal restraint of competition, or otherwise acted outside the privilege.
Is there a statute of limitations for tortious interference in Nebraska?
Yes. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207 sets a four-year limit. The Nebraska Court of Appeals has held that a contract interference claim accrues when the contract is breached, and that no discovery rule extends the deadline.
Do I need to prove the other party acted with malice?
No. Malice is not an element of a Nebraska tortious interference claim. A malicious motive is one factor courts weigh in deciding whether interference was unjustified, but it is generally insufficient by itself.
Can I sue a former employee who took clients to a competitor?
Possibly. The answer depends on whether the former employee used improper means, such as confidential information, and on any agreements the employee signed. A trade secret claim under the Nebraska Trade Secrets Act may apply alongside a tortious interference claim.
If a customer, vendor, or business partner has walked away from your company after an outsider stepped in, Horgan Law LLC can help. Contact us at 402-965-0652 or visit horganlawfirm.com/contact-us.
This post provides general information about Nebraska law and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every dispute turns on its own facts.