114 N.E.3d 20
Ind. Ct. App.2018Background
- Carney purchased a foreclosed Michigan City home on Feb 18, 2011 and entered to inspect it; he encountered occupant Fernando Patino, who was given time to remove belongings.
- A later heated encounter occurred over appliances; parties dispute the date and facts of a second meeting and whether Patino removed fixtures beyond appliances.
- On Feb 20, 2011 Carney reported to police that Patino was at the residence with trucks loaded with interior fixtures; a warrant issued, Patino was arrested, charged with felony theft, and later acquitted after ~5.5 years of litigation.
- Patino sued Carney (and others) for defamation, false arrest, and emotional distress; federal civil-rights claims were dismissed and state claims against the city/PD were dismissed; Patino proceeded against Carney on defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- Carney moved for summary judgment asserting qualified privilege for reporting suspected crime to police; the trial court denied the motion. After a jury trial, Patino recovered $320,000 with 80% fault assigned to Carney, resulting in $256,000 judgment against Carney.
- Carney appealed denial of summary judgment and judgment-on-the-evidence (qualified privilege), and challenged excessiveness of the verdict; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carney's report to police was protected by qualified privilege as a matter of law | Patino argued Carney abused the privilege by acting with ill will and without grounds, so privilege does not bar liability | Carney argued communications to law enforcement reporting suspected criminal activity are qualifiedly privileged and thus entitlement to summary judgment/judgment on the evidence | Denied: factual disputes about motive, credibility, and grounds for belief defeated entitlement to judgment as a matter of law; privilege abuse is for jury when not one conclusion only |
| Whether Patino presented sufficient evidence at trial to overcome qualified privilege (judgment on the evidence) | Patino asserted sufficient quantitative and qualitative evidence existed to infer Carney lied or lacked belief and acted from ill will | Carney claimed evidence was insufficient to overcome the privilege and required reversal | Denied: evidence and reasonable inferences were substantial enough for a jury to find privilege abused |
| Whether the jury's damages award was excessive | Patino relied on jury's assessment of emotional harm, reputational injury, and litigation costs from a prolonged criminal prosecution | Carney argued no medical bills, lost wages, or documented economic loss justified large verdict | Denied: appellate court deferred to jury; award within bounds supported by evidence of emotional distress and reputational harm |
| Whether allocation of fault (80% to Carney) was unreasonable | Patino relied on jury's allocation | Carney argued allocation was unsupported | Denied: allocation is factfinder's province and mere disagreement insufficient to overturn |
Key Cases Cited
- Bals v. Verduzco, 600 N.E.2d 1353 (Ind. 1992) (defines and explains abuse of qualified privilege)
- Williams v. Tharp, 914 N.E.2d 756 (Ind. 2009) (robust qualified privilege for reports to law enforcement; protects unverified or speculative reports to encourage reporting crime)
- Kelley v. Tanoos, 865 N.E.2d 593 (Ind. 2007) (defamatory per se includes imputations of criminal conduct)
- Purcell v. Old Nat'l Bank, 972 N.E.2d 835 (Ind. 2012) (explains quantitative and qualitative sufficiency standard for judgment on the evidence)
- Sims v. Pappas, 73 N.E.3d 700 (Ind. 2017) (appellate deference to jury damage awards; reversal for excess requires award so outrageous as to be inexplicable except by improper motive)