Today's Housing v. Times Shamrock Communications, Inc.
21 A.3d 1209
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- ToDay's Housing sued Newspaper Publishers for defamation based on five Pottsville Republican/Herald articles (Dec 2003–Mar 2004) about a Kerik dispute over HUD code violations; DCED intervened and required repairs; articles described repairs and consumer complaints; ToDay's Housing sought damages for alleged false statements about manufacturing responsibility and customer service; discovery occurred; the trial court granted summary judgment, concluding the articles were true or non-defamatory and not actionable; on appeal, the Superior Court reviewed de novo, focusing on falsity and malice under First Amendment standards; the court held ToDay's Housing failed to prove falsity or actual malice and affirmed the grant of summary judgment; the articles did not reasonably imply that ToDay's Housing manufactured the homes; the fourth article did discuss manufacturing processes and warranty responsibility, negating implied manufacturing liability; jurisdiction was affirmed, order affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the articles were capable of defamatory meaning | ToDay's Housing claimed the articles implied manufacturing liability and defective homes. | Newspaper Publishers contended the articles reported facts and opinions, not false statements. | No genuine defamation; articles not defamatory as a matter of law. |
| Whether ToDay's Housing proved falsity of the statements | ToDay's Housing asserted specific inaccuracies and false implications. | Newspaper Publishers argued the statements were true or substantially true. | ToDay's Housing failed to adduce evidence of falsity sufficient for jury. |
| Whether actual malice needed to be shown and was proven | ToDay's Housing claimed actual malice due to reckless disregard or knowledge of falsity. | Publishers argued absence of malice; statements within acceptable reporting scope. | No evidence of actual malice; summary judgment proper. |
| Whether innuendo or collective meaning supported a defamation claim | ToDay's Housing argued insinuations implied manufacturing and defective homes. | Articles did not, in context, convey manufactured-home liability. | Innuendo failed as a matter of law; gist not defamatory. |
Key Cases Cited
- Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1986) (plaintiff must prove falsity in public-concern defamation cases)
- Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 501 U.S. 496 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1991) (gist of a statement controls; minor inaccuracies allowed)
- Ertel v. Patriot-News Co., 544 Pa. 93 (Pa. Supreme Court, 1996) (falsity essential to defamation on issues of public concern)
- Livingston v. Murray, 417 Pa. Super. 202 (Pa. Super. Ct., 1992) (defamation by innuendo requires publication support for the asserted meaning)
- Thomas Merton Center v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 497 Pa. 460 (Pa. Supreme Court, 1981) (innuendo actionable when warranted and supported by publication)