Castle Rock Remodeling, LLC v. Better Business Bureau of Greater St. Louis, Inc.
354 S.W.3d 234
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Castle Rock sues BBB for libel/slander and tortious interference based on BBB's reliability report and a BBB rating of 'C' for Castle Rock.
- BBB's report attributed 17 consumer complaints against Castle Rock over 36 months, with some advertising concerns and an accreditation expiry in 2010.
- Castle Rock alleges the statements imply it is unreliable, has numerous unresolved complaints, and engages in deceptive advertising; it seeks an A rating and accreditation via declaratory relief.
- Castle Rock had been BBB-accredited and a member from 2002 until an asserted falling-out in 2008-2010 that allegedly led to negative reporting and resignation from BBB.
- BBB moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing statements were opinion or non-actionable; the trial court granted the motion with prejudice.
- On de novo review, the court concluded the statements were either true or nondefamatory and the rating was protected opinion; thus defamation and tortious interference claims were properly dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BBB's statements are actionable defamation | Castle Rock argues statements are false/defamatory facts. | BBB asserts statements are opinion or non-actionable and not provably false. | Statements not actionable; rating and facts are opinion or true. |
| Whether BBB's C rating can support defamation | C rating implies false factual claims about Castle Rock's reliability. | Rating is a subjective evaluation not provable as true/false. | C rating is protected opinion; not actionable defamation. |
| Whether Castle Rock has a defamation per se claim | Statements imply lack of integrity and competency. | Statements are opinion or true; no per se defaming facts. | Defamation per se not established; claims fail. |
| Whether Castle Rock's tortious interference claim survives | BBB's report and resignation harmed business expectancy unlawfully. | If defamation claim fails, interference claim fails for lack of absence of justification. | Interference claim fails because defamation claim fails and no independent fault shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sterling v. Rust Communications, 113 S.W.3d 279 (Mo.App. E.D. 2003) (elements of defamation; actionability depends on false statements)
- Nazeri v. Missouri Valley College, 860 S.W.2d 303 (Mo. banc 1993) (defamatory standard; nondefamatory interpretations)
- Pape v. Reither, 918 S.W.2d 376 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996) (opinions protected; motion to dismiss appropriate when statements are nonactionable)
- Ribaudo v. Bauer, 982 S.W.2d 701 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998) (test for opinion vs. assertion of factual information)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court 1990) (test for opinion vs. factual assertion; implications for defamation)
- Browne v. Avvo, Inc., 525 F. Supp. 2d 1249 (W.D. Wash. 2007) (rating systems are opinion protected by First Amendment)
- Aviation Charter, Inc. v. Aviation Research Group, 416 F.3d 864 (8th Cir. 2005) (ratings based on data are subjective; protected as non-defamatory opinion)
- Capobianco v. Pulitzer Pub. Co., 812 S.W.2d 852 (Mo. App. E.D. 1991) (absence of defamation allows no intentional interference claim)
- Patio World v. Better Business Bureau, Inc., 538 N.E.2d 1098 (Ohio App. 2 Dist. 1989) (distinction between opinion protected and qualified privilege for false statements)