Coghlan v. Beck
2013 IL App (1st) 120891
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2013Background
- Coghlan and Catwalk sue Beck, Busch, MBA, NAWBO, and NAWBO-Chicago for breach of contract, libel per se, slander per se, and civil conspiracy.
- Plaintiffs allege contract with MBA consisted of an Agreement and Health$hield Implementation Plan with costs and a schedule, including a blended rate and Low/High End costs.
- MBA terminates the contract in March 2011; Catwalk stops work and invoices $42,550 after termination.
- Beck issues a written defamatory statement about Coghlan, distributed to NAWBO-Chicago directors, with attached emails and documents.
- Busch sends an IBM letter accusing Coghlan of misrepresentations and theft related to MBA property; IBM financing involved.
- Trial court grants 2-615/2-619 motions to dismiss; on appeal, court affirms dismissal on multiple defences including privilege, substantial truth, and lack of specificity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract viability | Catwalk/MBA contract terms unambiguous | Exhibits negate breach; pricing fixed by High End cost | Breach claim properly dismissed |
| Beck libel/slander per se viability | Statements are defamatory per se and unprivileged | Statements are substantially true or nonactionable opinions or privileged | Dismissal affirmed based on substantial truth and privilege/objective construction |
| Conspiracy to commit libel per se | Beck and Busch conspired with malicious intent | Conspiracy pled with insufficient particularity and underlying tort dismissed | Dismissal affirmed |
| Busch's April 22 IBM letter privilege and innocent construction | No privilege or improper publication | Letter protected by qualified privilege; possible abuse not shown | Qualified privilege upheld; no malice shown; count IV dismissed |
| NAWBO/NAWBO-Chicago vicarious liability and Beck's actions | Agency relationship established; vicarious liability possible | No facts showing scope of employment or agency; privilege applies | Counts VI, VII, IX dismissed; no agency liability established |
Key Cases Cited
- Edelman, Combs & Latturner v. Hinshaw & Culbertson, 338 Ill. App. 3d 156 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 2003) (de novo review of 2-615/2-619; pleadings must be legally and factually sufficient)
- Knox College v. Celotex Corp., 88 Ill. 2d 407 (Ill. 1981) (fact-pleading standard; ultimate facts required)
- Dowd & Dowd, Ltd. v. Gleason, 181 Ill. 2d 460 (Ill. 1998) (ambiguity resolved against the drafter; contract terms control)
- Kuwik v. Starmark Star Marketing & Administration, Inc., 156 Ill. 2d 16 (Ill. 1993) (qualified privilege elements and malice standard)
- Popko v. Continental Casualty Co., 355 Ill. App. 3d 257 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 2005) (corporate privilege for internal investigations; context of publication)
- Barakat v. Matz, 271 Ill. App. 3d 662 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 1995) (distinguishes actionable statements from generalized opinions)
- Barrett v. Baratz, not applicable () (placeholder to maintain schema alignment)
- Harrison v. Chicago Sun-Times, Inc., 341 Ill. App. 3d 555 (Ill. App. 2003) (substantial truth and defamation standard)
- Green v. Rogers, 234 Ill. 2d 478 (Ill. 2009) (defamation per se and innocent construction framework)
- Solaia Technology, LLC v. Specialty Publishing Co., 221 Ill. 2d 558 (Ill. 2006) (privilege and publication context in defamation)