Terry v. Journal Broadcast Corp.
2013 WI App 130
| Wis. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Terry filed a defamation action against WTMJ-4, Mercure, Journal Broadcast Corp., and others stemming from February–March 2006 news broadcasts and online content.
- The Uebeles and Sligas paid Angie's Wedding Videos $1000 upfront; their videos were delayed well beyond promised timelines.
- The February 2, 2006 broadcast reported consumer complaints and included Mercure’s and Prenzlow’s statements about being ripped off and potential legal violations.
- A March 2006 follow-up broadcast addressed resolutions of complaints; a promotional ad and a state consumer protection official participated in the coverage.
- Terry sued for multiple claims including defamation, misappropriation, privacy invasion, and emotional distress; the circuit court granted summary judgment for media defendants.
- On appeal, Terry challenges the summary judgment, libel per se denial, amendment of pleadings, deposition, and emotional distress claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment for the media defendants was proper on defamation claims | Terry argues disputes exist on defaming statements and mischaracterizations. | The statements were true or opinion; not defamatory. | Proper; statements were substantially true or nondefamatory |
| Whether Mercure's statement that Uebeles were told their video would be done in 10 weeks was defamatory | The timeframe was an estimate and could be false. | Substantially true; timeframe reflected general expectation and actual delay occurred. | Not defamatory; substantially true |
| Whether Terry is entitled to libel per se relief | Mercure’s statements implying crime constitute libel per se. | Statements were not capable of defamatory meaning; they were opinions or substantially true. | Not libel per se |
| Whether the court erred in denying amendment of pleadings to conform to evidence | Should plead content of promotional video once produced. | Amendment would add nothing; content already in scripts; discretion within court's control. | Not error; amendment denied |
| Whether dismissal of emotional distress claims was proper | False broadcast and conduct caused independent emotional distress. | Claims are derivative of defamation; no false statements proven; no extreme conduct shown. | Proper; no independent distress claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Mach v. Allison, 2003 WI App 11 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002) (defamation standard; fair comment and opinion in public-interest cases)
- Lathan v. Journal Co., 30 Wis. 2d 146 (1966) (substantial truth standard for defamation)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1990) (clarifies fair comment and opinion defenses)
- Martin v. Outboard Marine Corp., 15 Wis. 2d 452 (Wis. 1962) (libel per se framework; defamatory meaning analysis)
- Frinzi v. Hanson, 30 Wis. 2d 271 (Wis. 1966) (contextual consideration in defamation)
- Denny v. Mertz, 106 Wis. 2d 636 (Wis. 1982) (truth as absolute defense to defamation)
- Rabideau v. City of Racine, 2001 WI 57 (Wis. 2001) (proof requirements for intentional infliction of emotional distress)
- Anderson v. Hebert, 2011 WI App 56 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011) (summary judgment standards in defamation)