Jeffrey M. Miller and Cynthia S. Miller v. Central Indiana Community Foundation, Inc., and Brian Payne
11 N.E.3d 944
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- Miller was president of JACI (1994–2008) and then led ELEF, separating it from JACI; ELEF’s only client was Performance Professionals in 2009.
- Miller engaged in a 2009–2010 City of Indianapolis employment discussion; no offer was extended and he eventually did not join the Mayor’s Office.
- Miller and Cynthia Miller filed suit on March 31, 2010 against CICF and Payne among others, alleging defamation and tortious interference claims.
- CICF and Payne moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted summary judgment in CICF/Payne’s favor on all counts.
- The record shows transfers of Glick grant funds from JACI to ELEF, with ongoing concerns by CICF about governance and reporting; an audit followed.
- The appellate court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of CICF and Payne, concluding no genuine issues of material fact remained on the asserted tort theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Defamation by Payne to Cotterill on March 9, 2010 | Miller asserts Payne defamed him | Payne’s statements were true and not defamatory | No defamation; statements true, summary judgment proper |
| Invasion of privacy by false light | Payne's statements placed Miller in false light | Statements true; no false light | No false-light invasion; no defamatory false statement found |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress | Payne’s ongoing conduct was extreme and outrageous | Conduct not extreme/outrageous; audit context | No IIED; no extreme/outrageous conduct shown |
| Tortious interference with a business relationship with the City | Payne intentionally interfered with Miller’s potential city employment | No unjustified, illegal interference; legitimate inquiry context | No tortious interference; lack of illegal conduct/justification present |
| Civil conspiracy and loss of consortium | CICF/Payne conspired to injure Miller; loss of consortium viable | Conspiracy not independent; underlying torts fail | Conspiracy claim and loss of consortium barred as underlying torts fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Shine v. Loomis, 836 N.E.2d 952 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (defamation elements; summary judgment when no genuine issue)
- Haegert v. McMullan, 953 N.E.2d 1223 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (defamation complaint specificity; summary judgment when statements not identified)
- Trail v. Boys & Girls Clubs of Nw. Ind., 845 N.E.2d 130 (Ind. 2006) (defamation elements; need specificity of statements for summary judgment)
- Bradley v. Hall, 720 N.E.2d 747 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (IIED standards; extreme and outrageous conduct test)
- Levee v. Beeching, 729 N.E.2d 215 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (tortious interference elements; illegality/justification factors)
- Bilimoria Computer Sys., LLC v. American Online, Inc., 829 N.E.2d 150 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (lack of justification requires legitimate business purpose)