Demurrer and plea in bar to civil conspiracy claim overruled

The court rejects defendants’ argument that Count III of plaintiff’s complaint, which alleges a civil conspiracy among the defendants, must be struck under the intracorporate immunity doctrine.

Defendants’ demurrer and plea in bar are overruled.

Parties’ arguments

At a hearing before this court, “Defendants argued that Count III of the Complaint, alleging a conspiracy between the Defendants, must be struck under the intracorporate immunity doctrine. The Complaint notes that Defendant Vera Wilson was a ‘managing member’ of Defendant Westover, with Caroline Wilson being ‘employed’ by Defendant Westover; further, Plaintiff described Defendant Scott Wilson as a ‘representative’ of Defendant Westover.

“Defendants argued this description was equivalent to alleging Defendant Scott Wilson was an agent or employee of Defendant Westover. As such, because all named Defendants were acting for the same corporation and a corporation cannot conspire within itself, Count III should be dismissed.

“Plaintiff noted, correctly, that the Supreme Court of Virginia has never explicitly recognized the intracorporate immunity doctrine. Plaintiff also argued that the use of the word ‘representative’ in the Complaint was not an allegation that Defendant Scott Wilson was an agent or employee of Defendant Westover.

“Plaintiff argued that whether Defendant Scott Wilson was an agent or employee, rather than an independent contractor, was a question of fact for the jury to decide. As such, Defendants’ Demurrer and Plea in Bar should be overruled.”

Decision

“The Court first notes that while the intracorporate immunity doctrine has never been explicitly recognized by the Virginia Supreme Court, the underlying logic of the immunity has been recognized.

“Recognizing that the logic behind Defendants’ Demurrer and Plea in Bar, namely that Defendants could not conspire amongst themselves, has been recognized by Virginia Courts, it is possible that Defendants may be entitled to the relief sought. As such the Court considers the substance of Defendants’ arguments.

“The Court finds Defendants’ argument unpersuasive. It is vital to Defendants’ Demurrer and Plea in Bar that the Complaint be found to allege that Defendant Scott Wilson was an agent or employee of Defendant Westover, as opposed to an independent contractor.

“In Plaintiff’s Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Scott Wilson was a ‘representative’ of Defendant Westover. Nowhere does Plaintiff allege Defendant Scott Wilson was Defendant Westover’s agent or employee; neither would it be a reasonable factual inference to find that the term ‘representative’ is equivalent to agent or employee.

“The Court instead finds that the nature of Defendant Scott Wilson’s professional relationship with Defendant Westover is a question of fact for the jury.

“The Court finds that, regarding Defendants’ Demurrer, Plaintiff’s Count III states a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. The Court further finds that, regarding Defendants’ Plea in Bar, Defendants have not proved that all named Defendants were a part of the same entity and are thus entitled to immunity from Plaintiffs allegations of civil conspiracy.”

Defendants’ demurrer and plea in bar are overruled.

Valley Boiler and Mechanical v. Wilson, et al., Case No. CL21-821, July 9, 2021 (Order), Roanoke City Circuit Court (Ware). Paul G. Beers, Melvin E. Williams for the parties. VLW 021-8-093, 5 pp.