Hallmark Builders, Inc. v. Gaylord Broadcasting Co., 83-3072

Decision Date07 June 1984
Docket NumberNo. 83-3072,83-3072
Parties10 Media L. Rep. 1981 HALLMARK BUILDERS, INC., a Florida Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GAYLORD BROADCASTING COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

W. Donald Cox, Tampa, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant.

Gregory G. Jones, Tampa, Fla., for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Before FAY, VANCE and HATCHETT, Circuit Judges.

HATCHETT, Circuit Judge:

In this diversity case, we determine whether the district court was correct in holding that Gaylord Broadcasting Company's (Gaylord) television station, WTVT, did not defame appellant, Hallmark Builders (Hallmark), in a broadcast concerning problems in the home building industry. The district court was correct, and we affirm.

On January 26, 1979, on its 6 p.m. and 11 p.m. news, WTVT reported on problems encountered by new home buyers and commented on defects found in houses Hallmark had constructed. WTVT aired the report after receiving information concerning a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigation into the home building industry and after receiving a complaint from Richard and Ann Jiosne, purchasers of a Hallmark house. WTVT confirmed the existence of defects in the Jiosne residence and other Hallmark houses before broadcasting the story.

At the time the broadcast was aired, WTVT's reporter knew that Hallmark was a builder with subdivisions in several of Florida's leading counties. He also knew that Hallmark received both FHA and VA financing, had its homes inspected by local building inspectors, and that few complaints had been lodged against Hallmark with consumer affairs offices. In addition, the broadcast made no attempt to compare Hallmark with other area builders, made no mention of whether the complaints had come from a substantial number of Hallmark's purchasers, and made no comment regarding any other builder. On the day of the broadcast, the reporter for WTVT interviewed Hallmark's president and was informed that the defects were minor and would be corrected.

While Hallmark contends the entire broadcast is rife with defamatory statements, it specifically relies on four statements and one camera shot to support its position. The statements and camera shot are:

[1.] A Federal Trade Commission official warned ... just this week ... that unless some home builders shape up ... the government will land on them ... hard. // Richard and Ann Jiosne say their $52,000 home in Brandon is a case in point.

[2.] New home defects are at the top of the list when it comes to consumer complaints.... And, unless builders nationwide take it upon themselves to construct better quality homes ... the federal government may have to step in with tough regulations to protect new home buyers.

[3.] Home owners cry foul.

[4.] These were expensive homes with expensive problems.

[5.] A camera shot of a hairline masonry crack in one of the homes.

The district court held that Hallmark had failed to prove either that the statements were false or that Gaylord was negligent in broadcasting them. The district court, therefore, granted summary judgment to Gaylord. Hallmark appeals claiming that summary judgment was inappropriate and Gaylord was negligent in broadcasting the report.

Under Florida law, Hallmark, a private corporation, is entitled to recover in a defamation action if Gaylord negligently broadcast either false statements or statements with false implications and the broadcast resulted in actual damage to Hallmark. Brown v. Tallahassee Democrat, Inc., 440 So.2d 588, 589-90 (Fla.App.1983); Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Ane, 423 So.2d 376, 388 (Fla.App.1982). See also Wolfson v. Kirk, 273 So.2d 774 (Fla.App.), cert. denied, 279 So.2d 32 (1973).

Where a publication or statement is susceptible to two interpretations, one of which is defamatory, a jury should determine whether the statement is defamatory. Belli v. Orlando Daily Newspapers, Inc., 389 F.2d 579, 583-84 (5th Cir.1967), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 825, 89 S.Ct. 88, 21 L.Ed.2d 96 (1968). See also Church of Scientology of California v. Cazares, 638 F.2d 1272, 1286 (5th Cir.1981). A trial court, however, is not precluded from finding, as a matter of law, that a publication is not defamatory. Church of Scientology, 638 F.2d at 1286. See also Southard v. Forbes, Inc., 588 F.2d 140 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 832, 100 S.Ct. 62, 62 L.Ed.2d 41 (1979) (summary judgment appropriate on the questions of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Johnston v. Borders
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • June 9, 2022
    ...and one is defamatory, it is for the jury to decide whether the statement is in fact defamatory. Hallmark Builders, Inc. v. Gaylord Broad. Co. , 733 F.2d 1461, 1463 (11th Cir. 1984).Ferguson argues she was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because no reasonable jury could have found t......
  • Johnston v. Borders
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • June 9, 2022
    ...... sheriff's office co-employee, whom she supervised,. defamed her ...Am. Home. Mortg. Servicing, Inc. , 817 F.3d 1241, 1254 (11th Cir. 2016). ... statement is in fact defamatory. Hallmark Builders, Inc. v. Gaylord Broad. Co. , 733 ......
  • Turner v. Wells, Case No. 15-61855-CIV-GAYLES
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
    • July 29, 2016
    ...Falsity"A false statement of fact is the sine qua non for recovery in a defamation action." Hallmark Builders, Inc. v. Gaylord Broad. Co. , 733 F.2d 1461, 1464 (11th Cir.1984) (quoting Byrd v. Hustler Magazine, Inc. , 433 So.2d 593, 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) ) (internal quotation marks omitte......
  • Fortson v. Colangelo
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Southern District of Florida
    • June 5, 2006
    ...claim, "[a] false statement of fact[,] is the sine qua non for recovery in a defamation action." See Hallmark Builders, Inc. v. Gaylord Broad., Co., 733 F.2d 1461, 1464 (11th Cir.1984) (quoting Byrd v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 433 So.2d 593, 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)); see also Milkovich v. Lo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT