State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Hernandez Auto Painting & Body Works, Inc.
312 Ga. App. 756
Ga. Ct. App.2011Background
- Hernandez Auto sued State Farm alleging steering of customers away from Hernandez Auto in violation of MVARA and also claimed trade libel.
- State Farm moved to dismiss the MVARA claim and argued there is no private cause of action under MVARA or for trade libel.
- Trial court dismissed the MVARA claim but denied the trade libel dismissal; Hernandez Auto appealed the trade libel ruling.
- Georgia appellate court granted interlocutory review to State Farm on the trade libel issue, and Hernandez Auto cross-appealed the MVARA ruling.
- Court held that Georgia does not recognize the tort of trade libel and that MVARA does not create a private right of action; thus, reverse on trade libel and affirm on MVARA dismissal.
- Judgment: A11A0962 reversed (no private trade libel action); A11A0963 affirmed (no private MVARA action).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trade libel recognition in Georgia | Hernandez Auto argues Restatement § 623A supports trade libel. | State Farm contends no Georgia tort of trade libel exists. | Trade libel not recognized in Georgia. |
| Private action under MVARA anti-steering | Hernandez Auto asserts private right of action under §33-34-6. | Statute creates enforcement via Insurance Commissioner, not private action. | No private right of action under MVARA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Eason Publications v. Atlanta Gazette, 141 Ga.App. 321 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977) (distinguishes trade libel from standard libel; not controlling for trade libel action here)
- Ga. Society of Plastic Surgeons v. Anderson, 257 Ga. 710 (Ga. 1987) (discusses overlap of defamation and trade libel; did not adopt Restatement §623A/§626 as Georgia law)
- Cross v. Tokio Marine & Fire Ins. Co., 254 Ga.App. 739 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002) (private action not implied from public policy; absence of express private right in statute)
- Monroe v. Bd. of Regents, etc., 268 Ga.App. 659 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004) (mere discussion of potential action does not create a new tort)
- Rasnick v. Krishna Hospitality, 302 Ga.App. 260 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010) (declines to invent new duty; cautions against creating new Restatement-based tort)
- United States Fidelity, etc., Co. v. Paul Assoc., 230 Ga.App. 243 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998) (declined to adopt Restatement §552B; existing law suffices for damages)
- Troncalli v. Jones, 237 Ga.App. 10 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999) (no statute or case law to support stalking claim; chose other remedies)
- Govea v. City of Norcross, 271 Ga.App. 36 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004) (no private action implied from statute absent express language)