Erie County Farmer's Ins. Co. v. Crecelius
| Decision Date | 02 April 1930 |
| Docket Number | 21935 |
| Citation | 122 Ohio St. 210,171 N.E. 97 |
| Parties | The Erie County Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Crecelius. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Libel and slander - Defamatory statement in pleading not actionable.
No action will lie for any defamatory statement made by a party to a court proceeding, in a pleading filed in such proceeding, where the defamatory statement is material and relevant to the issue.
Crecelius sued the insurance company in the court of common pleas of Erie county, averring damages for an alleged libel. The insurance company answered that the alleged libelous matter was published in an answer filed by the insurance company in a former suit upon a policy of fire insurance brought by Crecelius against the insurance company, which answer contained the following matter:
"Further answering and by way of defense the defendant company say that if the plaintiff, J.J. Crecelius, ever had any contract of insurance with the defendant company, and if the plaintiff, J.J. Crecelius, has sustained any loss of the buildings as set forth in his petition, it was of incendiary origin and was caused by the willful act of the plaintiff J.J. Crecelius, and with intentional fraud on the part of the plaintiff, J.J. Crecelius."
The insurance company claimed that the allegation was defensive to the petition, and material and pertinent thereto, and also alleged that the contents of said answer were not otherwise published, and that the defendant believed the allegation to be true at the time of the verification and filing thereof, and that it acted in good faith and upon the advice of its attorney. The reply was a general denial.
When the case came on for trial, counsel for plaintiff made an opening statement to the jury in which it was stated with some elaboration that the case against the insurance company to recover upon the policy terminated in favor of the insured, and that plaintiff had been greatly injured in his reputation and had suffered loss and injury to his business besides suffering great mental pain and anguish by publication of the libelous matter above referred to. In the course of the same statement, it was made clear that the matter was published in an answer filed in the suit to recover upon the policy. At the close of that statement counsel for the insurance company moved for a directed verdict upon the statement. After due consideration, that motion was sustained and judgment entered accordingly. Error was prosecuted to the Court of Appeals, which court reversed the judgment for error in overruling the motion of plaintiff in error for new trial, and remanded the cause to the court of common pleas for new trial. A motion to certify the record of the Court of Appeals to this court has been allowed.
Messrs Young & Young, and Mr. Claude J. Minor, for plaintiff in error.
Mr J.W. Jacoby, Mr. Henry Hart, and Mr. J.F. Hertlein, for defendant in error.
In the petition in this suit, the plaintiff Crecelius did not allege that the publication was contained in a pleading, and the defendant therefore answered stating that the alleged defamatory matter was a part of an answer to a suit then pending, and that the matter contained in the answer was material and relevant to the issue. It did not sufficiently appear in the petition that the situation was such as to give rise to the privilege, and for this reason the case came on for trial. The statement of the case to the jury by counsel for Crecelius made it clear that a suit was pending upon an insurance policy, and that the insurance company defended on the ground that Crecelius had willfully caused the loss, and that the fire was of incendiary origin, and that there was an intentional fraud on the part of Crecelius. The further statement of counsel was in substance that the answer in the suit upon the policy was not in good faith, but that it was false and malicious and intended to injure the good name of Crecelius.
The defendant having demurred to counsel's statement as to what he expected to show by the evidence, and that demurrer having been sustained, the statement of Crecelius, and every part thereof, must be accepted as true. If the Court of Appeals correctly reversed the court of common pleas, it must be upon the theory that if the answer in the suit upon the policy was false and malicious there can be a recovery in the libel suit. This becomes the sole legal question for our determination.
This question is by no means a new one. The English rule is that no action will lie against a party to an action for any defamatory statement made by him in a pleading, either in civil or criminal proceedings, even though such statement is false and malicious, and even though irrelevant to the matter in issue. The American rule by the great weight of authority differs only from the English rule in that the alleged defamatory matter must be relevant and material to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial