be incorporated in the provisions of the MTCA.” (citations omitted)). 7 .The circuit court correctly held that the MTCA does not waive the defendants’ sovereign immunity with respect to Kelley’s claims for fraudulent inducement and tortious interference with business relations or his demands for punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and prejudgment interest. See Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-5(2) (Supp.2015) ("a governmental entity shall not be liable or be considered to have waived immunity for any conduct of its employee if the employee’s conduct constituted fraud [or] malice”); id. § 11-46- 15 (2) (barring an award of punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, or prejudgment interest on any claim subject to the MTCA); Zumwalt v. Jones Cty. Bd. of Supervisors, 19 So.3d 672, 688 (¶¶ 83-84) (Miss.2009) (<HOLDING>). Kelley has not specifically addressed this
holding that the difference between interference with contract and prospective relations is that second tort requires showing of malice holding that sovereign immunity applies to claims alleging tortious interference with business relations because the tort requires proof of malice recognizing the tort of wrongful interference with anothers business relations 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 holding that the plaintiff stated a claim for tortious interference