Brenner v. Professional Service Industries, Inc., 89-166-CIV-T-17(C).

• Decision Date: 04 May 1989
• Docket Number: No. 89-166-CIV-T-17(C).,89-166-CIV-T-17(C).
• Citation: 710 F. Supp. 1336
• Parties: David R. BRENNER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

710 F. Supp. 1336

David R. BRENNER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants.

No. 89-166-CIV-T-17(C).

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division.

May 4, 1989.

Katherine Harasz and John W. Wilcox, Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe, Cramer & Jamieson, Tampa, Fla., for plaintiffs.

William S. Josey, Alpert, Josey & Grilli, P.A., Tampa, Fla., for Professional Service Industries, Inc.

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

KOVACHEVICH, District Judge.

This cause is before the Court on Defendant Professional Service Industries, Inc.'s motion to dismiss Counts II and III of the amended complaint, filed April 14, 1989, and response thereto, filed April 28, 1989.

A complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that Plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-02, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). A trial court, in ruling on a motion to dismiss, is required to view the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1947).

Count II of the amended claim asserts a claim for libel. In support thereof, Plaintiffs allege the following:

1. At all times material to this action, the Brenners were the owners of a poultry farm in Seffner, Florida. For 18 years until January 1987, the Brenners had operated their farm with success and efficiency. During this time they had developed and enjoyed a well earned reputation for producing high grade poultry products.

2. In late December 1986 or early January 1987, the State of Florida and the United States Environmental Protection Agency sampled the well water of the Brenner's chicken farm to test it for possible contamination from a nearby landfill.

3. Pursuant to the contract for the sampling and laboratory analysis of such water samples, Defendant analyzed the water from the Brenner's well and reported to the State and the United States EPA that the well water contained unsafe levels of benzene and toluene.

4. Acting on that analysis, the State advised Plaintiffs that because their well water was contaminated, they should not use their well or market the eggs or chicken on the farm.

5. Defendant, in or about January 1987, informed the EPA that Plaintiffs' well was poisonous. This was done in a written publication which stated the well was contaminated with excessive concentrations of benzene and toluene.

6. The publication was false, and, in fact, the water was potable and was never contaminated with excessive amounts of beneze and toluene.

7. The false publication cast ignominy, ridicule and contempt on Plaintiffs by accusing them of permitting a loathsome and unwholesome condition to exist on their farm. The publication further disparaged and injured Plaintiffs in their profession as poultry farmers.

Defendant asserts that Count II should be dismissed because the publication was made under qualified or conditional privilege and therefor it is necessary to plead express malice.

A qualified or conditional privilege arises when an otherwise libelous communication is made in good faith on any subject matter by one having an interest therein, or in reference to which he has a duty, to a person having a corresponding interest or duty. Nodar v. Galbreath, 462 So.2d 803 (Fla.1984); citing 19 Fla.Jur.2d Defamation and Privacy, s58 (1980). Florida courts have found the following elements essential to the finding of such a privilege: 1) good faith, 2) an interest to be upheld, 3) a statement limited in its scope to this purpose, 4) a proper occasion, and 5) publication is a proper manner. Lundquist v. Alewine, 397 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 1981). Where there is evidentiary dispute as to existence or non-existence of a privilege there is a mixed question for jury determination. Knepper v. Genstar Corp., 537 So.2d 619 (Fla. 3d D.C.A.1988).

The amended complaint here asserts that the testing done by Defendant did not follow the appropriate testing procedures and was done in a negligent manner. The Court finds that the allegations of the amended complaint raises factual issues concerning the existence of a qualified or conditional privilege, including the question of good faith and appropriate manner. Therefore, the question cannot be answered, as a matter of law, at this time and in the context of this motion to dismiss.

Defendant also contends that the prayer for punitive damages in Count II should be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. The standard for awarding punitive...