McClure v. Lovelace
78 A.3d 934
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2013Background
- Appellee Lovelace, a union official, sued local Union and its president McClure for defamation based on statements alleging Lovelace stole Union funds.
- McClure was elected Union president in 2007; Lovelace was Financial Secretary; relations deteriorated, including alleged mismanagement and disputes over finances.
- Lovelace first sued on Sept. 2, 2010; internal Union remedies existed but did not provide monetary damages.
- Trial court allowed defamation claim, rejecting exhaustion of internal remedies because monetary relief was unavailable in Union processes.
- Jury verdict: $200,000 for injury to reputation, $60,000 financial loss, $75,000 mental anguish; additional punitive damages later awarded; judgment affirmed on appeal.
- During trial, a law clerk for the trial judge engaged in limited ex parte communications with Lovelace’s counsel, and the jury heard pre- and post-trial proceedings relevant to damages and relief.
- Defendants argued Lovelace should have exhausted internal remedies and that pre-September 2009 statements were time-barred; the court ultimately found exhaustion excused and admitted the statements under discovery rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of internal union remedies required? | Lovelace not required to exhaust as procedures inadequate for money damages. | Exhaustion required; union remedies could provide relief. | Exhaustion excused; remedies inadequate for monetary damages. |
| Whether the jury could find actual malice by McClure? | Sufficient circumstantial evidence showed knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard. | No proof of malice; statements not proven false. | Yes; clear and convincing evidence supported actual constitutional malice. |
| Whether damages may be presumed after actual malice finding? | Presumed damages allowed upon malice finding. | Presumed damages should not be allowed. | Presumed damages approved following malice finding. |
| Admission of pre-September 2009 statements (outside statute of limitations)? | Discovery rule permitted inclusion. | Time-barred; should be excluded. | Statements properly admitted under discovery rule; no error. |
| Did economic damages award have error? | Economic loss supported by trial evidence. | Award not properly supported. | Economic damages upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Walsh v. Communications Workers of America, 259 Md. 608 (Md. 1970) (exhaustion of internal union remedies doctrine in Maryland)
- Clayton v. International Union, 451 U.S. 679 (U.S. 1981) (three-factor exhaustion test for unions, hostility, adequacy, delay)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964) (actual malice standard for public figures in defamation)
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (U.S. 1974) (restricts presumed/punitive damages absent actual malice)
- Hanlon v. Davis, 76 Md.App. 339 (Md. 1988) (presumed damages when actual malice proven for public figures)
- Jacron Sales Co., Inc. v. Sindorf, 276 Md. 580 (Md. 1976) (recognizes presumption of damages with malice in defamation)