Waterfield v. Meredith Corp.
161 N.H. 707
| N.H. | 2011Background
- Waterfield, administrator of his deceased wife's estate, sued after a Connecticut TV news broadcast defamed him.
- Defendants included Meredith Corp. and unknown reporters; suit filed in New Hampshire nearly three years after the broadcast.
- Trial court granted summary judgment, applying Connecticut statute of limitations, and held plaintiff not domiciled in NH at the relevant time.
- Court considered choice-of-law, applying Clark and Keeton frameworks to determine applicable statute of limitations.
- Court remanded to determine domicile at the time of the broadcast and to apply the correct choice-of-law analysis; publication and residency issues were analyzed but not fully resolved on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the action arise in New Hampshire for choice-of-law purposes? | Waterfield argued NH should apply or presumption of publication in NH if signal reached NH. | Defendants contended publication did not arise in NH; no NH receipt shown; no presumption. | Action did not arise in NH. |
| What is Waterfield's domicile/residency at the relevant time for choice-of-law? | Waterfield remained NH resident at broadcast time due to prior NH residence. | No NH residency at broadcast; plaintiff a CT resident associated with extradition. | Domicile is a mixed question of law and fact; remanded to resolve residency at the time of the broadcast. |
| Which statute of limitations applies if Waterfield was not NH resident at broadcast? | NH three-year statute governs if NH residence exists; otherwise other state's limits apply via choice-of-law analysis. | Apply five-factor Keeton balancing to select applicable limitations period. | Remand to apply the Keeton/Clark framework; if NH resident at broadcast, NH limits apply; otherwise multi-factor analysis. |
| Was publication in NH proven or refuted for defamation? | Insists NH publication occurred via receivable signal; some 'scientific proof' suggested. | Publication requires communication to and understanding by a NH individual; no admissible expert foundation shown. | Publication proof insufficient; NH-specific publication not demonstrated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 131 N.H. 6 (1988) (statutes of limitations generally procedural but balance after conflict analysis)
- Clark v. Clark, 107 N.H. 351 (1966) (five-factor choice-of-law methodology for conflicts)
- Roll v. Tracor, Inc., 140 F.Supp.2d 1073 (D. Nev. 2001) (domicile considerations in choice-of-law analyses; timing of accident)
- Summers v. Interstate Tractor and Equipment Co., 466 F.2d 42 (9th Cir. 1972) (post-accident domicile considerations in choice-of-law)
- Laramie v. Stone, 160 N.H. 419 (2010) (necessity of expert testimony when subject is scientific)
- LaBounty v. American Insurance Co., 122 N.H. 738 (1982) (principles of conflict of laws and procedure)