Garrett M. Cornelius v. The Chronicle, Inc.
206 A.3d 710
Vt.2019Background
- Garrett Cornelius sued The Chronicle for false-light invasion of privacy based on two 2016 articles: a July piece reporting a VIC bulletin and public Facebook posts about Cornelius and his brother, and a November piece describing Cornelius’s arraignment and demeanor.
- The Chronicle moved under Vermont’s anti‑SLAPP statute, 12 V.S.A. § 1041, to strike the complaint and sought statutory attorney’s fees after prevailing.
- The trial court struck the July and November claims, finding the articles related to matters of public concern and had reasonable factual support; it initially awarded fees but then limited recovery to the newspaper’s $5,000 insurance deductible.
- Cornelius appealed the strikes; The Chronicle appealed the fee reduction.
- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed that both articles fell within the anti‑SLAPP statute and were properly stricken, but reversed the fee ruling, holding the statute requires awarding reasonable attorney’s fees in full (no insurance‑payment limitation).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the anti‑SLAPP statute applies (public‑issue requirement) | Cornelius: VIC bulletin was confidential and articles were not "in connection with a public issue." | Chronicle: Articles concerned public safety, law‑enforcement activity, crime reporting, and public Facebook posts. | Held: Articles concerned public safety/criminal matters and met the public‑issue requirement. |
| Whether statements lacked reasonable factual support (§ 1041(e)(1)(A)) | Cornelius: Articles contained false assertions about his criminal history, threats, and behavior. | Chronicle: Statements were attributed to VIC bulletin, court records, police affidavit, reporter’s observations, and public posts—providing reasonable support. | Held: Cornelius failed to show the speech was devoid of reasonable factual support; strike proper. |
| Whether the November article states provably false facts (prima facie claim) | Cornelius: Reporter’s descriptions of him as "loud and combative" were false. | Chronicle: Reporter observed the arraignment and provided affidavit corroborating characterization. | Held: Statements were opinion/perception grounded in observation and had a reasonable basis; motion to strike warranted (court need not reach dismissal issue). |
| Whether defendant may recover full reasonable attorney’s fees even if insurer pays | Cornelius: Impliedly argued limiting recovery to out‑of‑pocket (deductible) is appropriate. | Chronicle: Statute mandates fees to successful movant regardless of whether fees are paid by insurer/third party. | Held: § 1041(f)(1) mandates awarding costs and reasonable attorney’s fees; recovery is not limited by insurance payment. Court must determine and award reasonable fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Felis v. Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC, 133 A.3d 836 (Vt. 2015) (interpreting Vermont anti‑SLAPP statute and requiring public‑issue showing)
- Caledonia Record Publ’g Co. v. Walton, 573 A.2d 296 (Vt. 1990) (public/media right of access to law‑enforcement and crime information)
- Soon Kwon v. Eaton, 8 A.3d 1043 (Vt. 2010) (statutory award of attorney’s fees reviewed as a matter of law; amount left to trial court discretion)
- Perez v. Travelers Ins. Co., 915 A.2d 750 (Vt. 2006) (American Rule; fees awarded only when statute/contract provides)
- Polay v. McMahon, 10 N.E.3d 1122 (Mass. 2014) (anti‑SLAPP fee award available even when defense paid by insurer)
- Macias v. Hartwell, 64 Cal. Rptr. 2d 222 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (anti‑SLAPP fees recoverable despite third‑party payment)
- Ketchum v. Moses, 17 P.3d 735 (Cal. 2001) (fee‑shifting in anti‑SLAPP context furthers deterrence of meritless suits)