Tortious Interference Claim Dismissed in Case Involving Alleged Use of Improper Horseshoe
- posted: Sep. 15, 2025
- Business Torts
Kentucky is recognized worldwide as the capital of thoroughbred racing. The people and businesses devoted to developing winning horses pursue their goals vigorously on the track, in the paddock, and sometimes at the courthouse. A dispute arising from the 2022 Lukas Classic race led the connections of one horse to seek relief through a tortious interference lawsuit.
Hot Rod Charlie came in first at the Grade 2 race ahead of Rich Strike, but the second-place horse’s owner alleged that the purported winner competed with non-permissible shoes. Specifically, Rick Dawson claimed that Hot Rod Charlie’s front shoes appeared to have toe grabs, which are not allowed on dirt under the rules of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA). However, HISA rejected the appeal, holding that the toe grabs originally on the shoes had been ground down sufficiently to comply with the rule.
Rich Strike’s connections did not give up though, filing a business tort action claiming that Hot Rod Charlie’s connections intentionally interfered with their valid expectancy that Rich Strike would win a fairly conducted race. Consequently, Rich Strike’s connections sought more than $300,000 in damages covering the additional purse money, winner’s trophy and increased stud fees that they said would have accompanied a first-place finish.
The court rejected the use of a tortious interference claim to overturn the race result. Judge Annie O’Connell in Jefferson Circuit Court focused on the fact that the relief sought by Rich Strike’s connections bypassed the federal law that created HISA and the regulatory structure that governs horse racing in the United States. Consequently, she held that federal law pre-empted a state court’s ability to determine if a rule violation occurred. Judge O’Connell reasoned that a ruling in favor of Rich Strike’s connections would have undermined HISA’s established decision, compromising its authority in maintaining fair play and safety standards in the industry.
While the court ruled that the regulatory framework barred a tortious interference action in this case, there are various types of situations where a third party intentionally disrupts a contractual or business relationship between two other entities. If you believe you might be entitled to relief due to tortious interference, or if you are accused of intruding unlawfully on a valid business expectancy, reach out to Hemmer Wessels McMurtry PLLC in Fort Mitchell. You can speak to one of our business tort attorneys by calling 859-344-1188 or contacting us online.
Tortious Interference Claim Dismissed in Case Involving Alleged Use of Improper Horseshoe
- posted: Sep. 15, 2025
- Business Torts
Kentucky is recognized worldwide as the capital of thoroughbred racing. The people and businesses devoted to developing winning horses pursue their goals vigorously on the track, in the paddock, and sometimes at the courthouse. A dispute arising from the 2022 Lukas Classic race led the connections of one horse to seek relief through a tortious interference lawsuit.
Hot Rod Charlie came in first at the Grade 2 race ahead of Rich Strike, but the second-place horse’s owner alleged that the purported winner competed with non-permissible shoes. Specifically, Rick Dawson claimed that Hot Rod Charlie’s front shoes appeared to have toe grabs, which are not allowed on dirt under the rules of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA). However, HISA rejected the appeal, holding that the toe grabs originally on the shoes had been ground down sufficiently to comply with the rule.
Rich Strike’s connections did not give up though, filing a business tort action claiming that Hot Rod Charlie’s connections intentionally interfered with their valid expectancy that Rich Strike would win a fairly conducted race. Consequently, Rich Strike’s connections sought more than $300,000 in damages covering the additional purse money, winner’s trophy and increased stud fees that they said would have accompanied a first-place finish.
The court rejected the use of a tortious interference claim to overturn the race result. Judge Annie O’Connell in Jefferson Circuit Court focused on the fact that the relief sought by Rich Strike’s connections bypassed the federal law that created HISA and the regulatory structure that governs horse racing in the United States. Consequently, she held that federal law pre-empted a state court’s ability to determine if a rule violation occurred. Judge O’Connell reasoned that a ruling in favor of Rich Strike’s connections would have undermined HISA’s established decision, compromising its authority in maintaining fair play and safety standards in the industry.
While the court ruled that the regulatory framework barred a tortious interference action in this case, there are various types of situations where a third party intentionally disrupts a contractual or business relationship between two other entities. If you believe you might be entitled to relief due to tortious interference, or if you are accused of intruding unlawfully on a valid business expectancy, reach out to Hemmer Wessels McMurtry PLLC in Fort Mitchell. You can speak to one of our business tort attorneys by calling 859-344-1188 or contacting us online.
