Defendants in a light most favorable to them, we conclude that the facts alleged in their complaint are sufficient to support a tortious interference action against the Individual Defendants. Consequently, the trial court did not err by dismissing the Trails tor-tious interference claim against the Club and the members of the Executive Committee named in their official capacity. However, the trial court erred by dismissing the Trails' tortious interference claim against the Individual Defendants. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's dismissal of the tortious interference claim against the Individual Defendants and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. See, e.g., First Nat'l Bank of Danville v. Reynolds, 491 N.E.2d 218, 223 (Ind.Ct.App.1986) (<HOLDING>), reh'g denied, trans. denied. III. Defamation
holding that the plaintiff stated a claim for tortious interference holding that where both defamation and tortious interference claims are pled and are based on same facts minnesota law requires the application of the actual malice standard to tortious interference claims recognizing action for tortious interference with prospective advantage holding that the lmra preempted plaintiffemployees claim under michigan law for tortious interference with contractual relations breach of contract is an essential element of a tortious interference claim and resolution of such claim would require the court to interpret collective bargaining agreement to determine if that agreement had been breached holding that a claim for tortious interference with inheritance exists under texas law