Haueter v. Cowles Pub. Co.

• Decision Date: 11 June 1991
• Docket Number: No. 10361-7-III,10361-7-III
• Citation: 811 P.2d 231,61 Wn.App. 572
• Parties: , 19 Media L. Rep. 2107 Roy HAUETER and Spokane Passport, Inc., Appellants, v. COWLES PUBLISHING COMPANY and Theresa Goffredo, Respondents.
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals

Page 572

61 Wn.App. 572

811 P.2d 231, 19 Media L. Rep. 2107

Roy HAUETER and Spokane Passport, Inc., Appellants, v. COWLES PUBLISHING COMPANY and Theresa Goffredo, Respondents.

No. 10361-7-III.

Court of Appeals of Washington,

Division 3, Panel Two.

June 11, 1991.

Frank Conklin, Murphy, Bantz & Bury, P.S., Spokane, for appellants

Duane M. Swinton, Witherspoon, Kelley, Davenport & Toole, P.S., Spokane, for respondents.

MUNSON, Judge.

Spokane Passport, Inc., and its president, Roy Haueter (collectively referred to as Haueter), appeal from a summary judgment dismissing their libel claims against Cowles Publishing Company and reporter Theresa Goffredo (collectively referred to as the publisher). They Spokane Passport, Inc. (SPI) is a Washington domestic profit corporation "operating a membership organization for the purpose of buying and selling merchandise and services at discounts". Passport Marketing (PM) is a sole proprietorship owned by John Lane. SPI and PM both have used the single name "Passport" in the past. The 1983 Spokane telephone directory carried a listing for Passport Inc. at the same address as SPI, E. 213 Sprague.

                contend (1) the court applied the wrong standard of proof, "convincing clarity";  (2) the articles were demonstrably false;  (3) statements by the Better Business Bureau are not protected statements of opinion;  (4) there are genuine issues of material fact as to the issue of whether the publisher lost its privilege to report statements of government employees by reporting them inaccurately;  (5) the publisher acted with actual malice by reporting statements of government officials it knew to be false;  (6) statements by the Better Business Bureau should not be accorded privilege;  and (7) the court failed to address the claimed defamation which occurred after this action was commenced.   We affirm
                

In June 1983, an entity designated as "Passport" agreed to raise funds for Spokane City/County Volunteer Search and Rescue. "Passport" was to retain 80 percent of the gross revenues. Mr. Haueter signed two agreements with a search and rescue organization on behalf of "Passport". According to Mr. Haueter, he signed these agreements pursuant to another agreement between himself and Mr. Lane by which Mr. Lane, operating as PM, would sell tickets to shows to be produced and directed by Mr. Haueter in his individual capacity. There is no evidence of any entity called "Passport".

In December 1983, PM employees made telephone solicitations on behalf of the Spokane Area Fire Education Association and the Emergency & Crisis Relief Fund. ¹ The script for solicitations on behalf of the Emergency & Crisis Reporter Theresa Goffredo wrote a series of articles about deceptive charitable solicitation activities in Spokane. The articles were published in The Spokesman-Review and Spokane Chronicle, both owned by Cowles Publishing Company, during December 1983.

                Relief Fund identified the beneficiary as the "Christmas Benefit Fund" and stated 20 percent of the money raised would be used to buy food baskets for the needy, to be distributed by the Disabled American Veterans Auxiliary. 2  PM retained 80 percent of the [811 P.2d 234] proceeds from these solicitation efforts
                

Articles which appeared on December 7 indicated an organization called Passport Inc., had been soliciting contributions to the Disabled American Veterans Christmas Basket Fund without the consent of the veterans organization. December 8 articles contained further allegations:

Passport Inc. said it recently started what it calls Emergency Crisis Relief Fund, but Maurice Hickey, general manager for the [Better Business Bureau], said this fund was a phony.

Hickey said his own investigation found that Passport kept between 60 and 70 percent of the money made through solicitations.

"The remainder is left for a contribution, if necessary," Hickey said.

These articles said the company used the name Spokane Passport, Inc., identified Roy Haueter as the president of "Passport", and said he was out of town.

Articles appearing on December 30 identified SPI as a telephone soliciting company accused by the State Attorney General's Office of "pocketing most of the funds it raises for charitable groups". Assistant State Attorney General Mike Flynn was reported to have said "Passport" used three The record contains no evidence SPI engaged in telephone solicitation; PM, however, did use "telephone solicitation techniques". SPI's 1983 tax return reflects an address of E. 213 Sprague. When the reporter called the telephone directory number for SPI at E. 213 Sprague, the telephone was answered by a person who identified herself as Sue Wedum. The former Sue Wedum, now Sue Lane, wife of John Lane, was the secretary/bookkeeper/receptionist for PM. According to Mr. Lane, the sole address for PM was E. 211 Sprague. The 1980 articles of incorporation for SPI show a corporate address of E. 211 Sprague. Haueter sued the publisher for libel, seeking actual and punitive damages. The trial court granted the publisher's motion for summary judgment, and Haueter appeals.

names: Passport Inc., Spokane Passport Inc., and Passport Marketing Inc. ³

STANDARD OF PROOF

Haueter contends Washington courts extend heightened protection to media defendants in defamation cases in violation of libelled plaintiffs' constitutional rights of privacy and access to the courts. ⁴ See LaMon v. Butler, 112 Wash.2d Under the common law, a defamation plaintiff could recover presumptive damages if he shows he has been referred to by words which are libelous per se and have been published to a third person. Arnold v. National Union of Marine Cooks & Stewards, 44 Wash.2d 183, 187, 265 P.2d 1051 (1954). A publication is libelous per se if it tends to expose a living person to hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy, to deprive him of the benefit of public confidence or social intercourse, or to injure him in his business or occupation. Purvis v. Bremer's, Inc., 54 Wash.2d 743, 751, 344 P.2d 705 (1959). When the published words are not libelous per se, special or actual damages must be alleged and proved. Purvis, at 747, 344 P.2d 705; Denney v. Northwestern Credit Ass'n, 55 Wash. 331, 333, 104 P. 769 (1909).

                193, 206-12, 770 P.2d 1027 (Utter, J., dissenting), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 61, 107 L.Ed.2d 29 (1989).   Because of the proliferation of cases on defamation since the advent of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 [811 P.2d 235] L.Ed.2d 686, 95 A.L.R.2d 1412 (1964), it is necessary to review the status of the law in this area
                

The common law recognizes defenses of consent, truth, absolute privilege and several qualified privileges. Jolly v. Fossum, 63 Wash.2d 537, 541, 388 P.2d 139 (1964); Gaffney v. Scott Pub'g Co., 41 Wash.2d 191, 193, 248 P.2d 390 (1952), cert. denied, 345 U.S. 992, 73 S.Ct. 1131, 97 L.Ed. 1400 (1953). A qualified privilege may be lost if the publication is made with malice. Jolly, 63 Wash.2d at 542, 388 P.2d 139. In this context, the word malice connotes ill will or an absence of good faith. Jolly, at 543, 388 P.2d 139; Ecuyer v. New York Life Ins. Co., 101 Wash. 247, 257, 172 P. 359 (1918).

Under the common law, the standard of proof applicable to noncriminal libel cases is preponderance of the evidence. Lunz v. Neuman, 48 Wash.2d 26, 290 P.2d 697 (1955); Owens v. Scott Pub'g Co., 46 Wash.2d 666, 284 P.2d 296 (1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 968, 76 S.Ct. 437, 100 L.Ed. 840 (1956).

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, interpreted the First Amendment to require significant changes to the common law of defamation. The United States Supreme Washington first followed the New York Times decision in Grayson v. Curtis Pub'g Co., 72 Wash.2d 999, 436 P.2d 756 (1967). Since then, the constitutional privilege has been applied in numerous cases involving public officials and public figures. See Herron v. KING Broadcasting Co., 112 Wash.2d 762, 776 P.2d 98 (1989); Herron v. Tribune Pub'g Co., 108 Wash.2d 162, 736 P.2d 249 (1987); Chase v. Daily Record, Inc., 83 Wash.2d 37, 515 P.2d 154 (1973); Tilton v. Cowles Pub'g Co., 76 Wash.2d 707, 459 P.2d 8 (1969), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 927, 90 S.Ct. 2238, 26 L.Ed.2d 792 (1970); Tait v. KING Broadcasting Co., 1 Wash.App. 250, 460 P.2d 307 (1969).

                Court established a qualified privilege for defamatory falsehood relating to the official conduct of a public official.  New York Times, 376 U.S. at 279, 282-83, 84 S.Ct. at 725-26, 727-28.   A public official can recover for defamation only by proving the statement was made with actual malice, defined by the Court as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.  New York Times, 376 U.S. at 279-80, 84 S.Ct. at 725-26.   Moreover, actual malice must be proven with convincing clarity.  New York Times, 376 U.S. at 285-86, 84 S.Ct. at 728-29.   The privilege was extended to defamation of public figures in Curtis Pub'g Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 87 S.Ct. 1975, 18 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1967)
                

In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 342, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3008, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974), the Court declined to extend the full protection of the constitutional New York Times privilege to defamations of private individuals. Instead, the Court held the states must establish some standard of fault to be proven by a private individual in order to recover for injuries caused by defamatory falsehood. Gertz, 418 U.S. at 345-46, 94 S.Ct. at 3009-10. However, when liability is not based on a showing of actual malice, "the States may not permit recovery of presumed or punitive damages ...". Gertz, 418 U.S. at 349, 94 S.Ct. at 3011. Gertz was partially modified by Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 761, 105 S.Ct. 2939, 2946, 86 L.Ed.2d 593 (1985), holding speech involving "no matters of public concern" is of reduced constitutional value and in such cases states may Following Gertz, Taskett v. KING Broadcasting Co., 86...