With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". if taken as true, would rebut the presumption of at-will employment.... Accordingly, there was no basis for either a breach of contract or a tortious interference with contract claim.... ”). Moreover, two of the three cases involved suits against third parties to the plaintiffs’ employment arrangements. See Futrell, 816 A.2d at 798, 807-08; McManus, 748 A.2d at 957-58. Conversely, two of the cases that Metz cites as supporting his contention that this principle has an exception when the case is brought against a third party do so only by implication. Although each allowed such a claim for tortious interference with an agreement that was terminable at will, neither addressed the question of whether the at-will nature of the agreement precluded the claim. See Sorrells, 565 A.2d at 290-91 (<HOLDING>); CASCO, 834 A.2d at 83-84 (reciting the result

A: holding only that although a party cannot interfere with its own contract a supervisor who is not an officer of a plaintiffs employer is not a party to the plaintiffs employment contract and therefore can interfere with it
B: holding that person who is not party to contract does not have standing to challenge contract
C: holding that insurer could not tortiously interfere with its own insurance plan
D: holding that misrepresentation and breach of contract claims in state court did not interfere with the nlrbs determination of related matters
A.