State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. Joseph Martin Radcliff and Coastal Property Management LLC, a/k/a CPM Construction of Indiana
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 168
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- April 2006 hailstorm in central Indiana prompted State Farm claim denials, with CPM formed to repair damaged homes.
- Radcliff created Coastal Property Management LLC (CPM) and represented about 300 State Farm policyholders with denied claims.
- State Farm initiated a fraud investigation into Radcliff/CPM; Radcliff was arrested in 2008; charges were later dismissed via diversion agreement.
- State Farm sued Radcliff/CPM for fraud and racketeering; Radcliff/CPM counterclaimed for defamation and related harms.
- A nearly six-week jury trial resulted in a $14.5 million verdict for Radcliff/CPM on defamation counterclaim; State Farm sought post-trial relief.
- The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the verdict, denying State Farm’s requests for judgment on the evidence, new trial on damages, or other relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public-interest privilege for crime reporting | State Farm: privilege protects communications to NICB/IMPD; no abuse. | Radcliff/CPM: privilege was abused by ill will and improper concealment of evidence. | Privilege not applicable; jury could find abuse; denial of judgment on the evidence affirmed. |
| Statutory immunity for communications | State Farm: immunity applies if good faith communications occurred. | There was no good faith; State Farm withheld exculpatory evidence and acted with ill will. | There is sufficient evidence to deny immunity; not acted in good faith; jury’s verdict stands. |
| Actual malice standard and review | Radcliff/CPM prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. | State Farm argues lack of clear and convincing proof of malice. | Radcliff/CPM proved actual malice; independent, heightened review confirmed the verdict. |
| Damages and causation | Damages include presumed and special damages; expert testimony supports substantial loss. | Challenge to causation and admissibility of expert; argument damages unreliable. | Damages sustained; expert testimony admitted; proximate causation established; verdict not excessive. |
Key Cases Cited
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964) (establishes actual malice standard for public figures)
- Curtis Pub. Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (U.S. 1967) (extends actual malice standard to public figures)
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (U.S. 1974) (private individuals in matters of public concern receive different standard)
- Journal-Gazette Co. v. Bandido’s, Inc., 712 N.E.2d 446 (Ind. 1999) (establishes standard of review for private-figure defamation cases on public concerns)
- Harte-Hanks Commc’ns, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (U.S. 1989) (limits reliance on circumstantial evidence in actual malice inquiries)
- Kelley v. Tanoos, 865 N.E.2d 593 (Ind. 2007) (defamation privilege related to reporting to law enforcement)