874 N.W.2d 394
Mich. Ct. App.2015Background
- Plaintiff Mark Anthony Eddington sued after defendant Raymond Torrez (and Admiral Petroleum Co.) reported to police that Eddington had stolen gasoline on four occasions.
- Eddington alleged the reports were false and made with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard, constituting defamation per se.
- No factual development occurred below; the trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8).
- The sole legal dispute on appeal was whether statements to police about criminal conduct are absolutely privileged and thus unactionable for defamation.
- The trial court held the statements were absolutely privileged under controlling precedent and dismissed the claim; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reports to police about alleged crimes are absolutely privileged against defamation claims | Shinglemeyer privilege should be abrogated or limited; absolute privilege is no longer valid | Shinglemeyer creates an absolute privilege for reports to law enforcement, insulating defendants from defamation liability | Court held Shinglemeyer remains good law: reports to police are absolutely privileged in defamation suits |
| Whether malicious or knowingly false reports are still privileged | Malicious/knowing falsity should preclude absolute privilege | Privilege applies even if the reporting party acted maliciously; criminal statutes address false reporting | Court held privilege applies regardless of malice; criminal prosecution is the proper remedy for false reports |
| Whether statements made to initiate versus during an investigation differ for privilege purposes | Distinction between initiating vs. ongoing investigation should remove absolute privilege | No meaningful legal difference; both are privileged | Court rejected the distinction; both are covered by absolute privilege |
| Whether summary disposition was appropriate under MCR 2.116(C)(8) | Plaintiff argued factual questions or law change precluded dismissal | Defendants argued the complaint failed as a matter of law because of absolute privilege | Court affirmed (C)(8) dismissal because even accepting plaintiff’s facts, absolute privilege barred the claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Shinglemeyer v. Wright, 124 Mich. 230 (1900) (establishes absolute privilege for communications to police about crimes)
- Simpson v. Burton, 328 Mich. 557 (1950) (reaffirms privilege applies even if report was made maliciously)
- Mitan v. Campbell, 474 Mich. 21 (2005) (defines elements of a defamation claim)
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (1999) (standard for (C)(8) motions and construing well-pleaded facts in favor of nonmoving party)