Iverson v. Crow, 45032
| Decision Date | 06 July 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 45032,45032 |
| Citation | 639 S.W.2d 118 |
| Parties | 8 Media L. Rep. 2104 Emil C. IVERSON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. R. T. CROW, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Niedner, Moerschel, Ahlheim, Bodeux & Lockett, Norman C. Steimel, St. Charles, for defendant-appellant.
Cundiff, Turken, Londoff & Drakesmith, Frederick W. Drakesmith, St. Charles, Bruce M. Wurmser, St. Louis, for plaintiff-respondent.
Appellant filed a counterclaim for libel based on the following statement that was written and published by respondent: "The original developer of Lake Saint Louis, R. T. Crow, continues to cloud the facts with half-truths, innuendo, distortion, and misrepresentation." 1 On motion of respondent, the counterclaim was dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 2 The order of the trial court was designated as final pursuant to Rule 81.06. This appeal ensues. We affirm.
The dispositive issue raised on appeal is whether the statements complained of are constitutionally protected "opinions" and therefore absolutely privileged under the first amendment of the United States Constitution. If a defendant bases his expression of a derogatory opinion of the plaintiff on his own statement of false and defamatory facts, he is subject to liability for the factual statement but not for the expression of opinion. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 566 illustration 5(1) (1976). Anton v. St. Louis Suburban Newspapers, Inc., 598 S.W.2d 493, 498-99 (Mo.App.1980). These opinions are, even if falsely and insincerely held, constitutionally privileged if the facts supporting them are set forth. 598 S.W.2d at 499. The rationale underlying this rule of law is that where the facts underlying the opinion are set forth in the article, the opinion is afforded privilege because each reader may draw his own conclusion to support or challenge the opinion. Id. Liability can be imposed only if the expression of opinion creates the reasonable inference of undisclosed defamatory facts as the basis for the opinion. Id.
In this case, appellant does not challenge the facts stated in respondent's news article, but argues that the facts do not support the stated opinions, thus becoming a defamatory statement of opinions without facts. We disagree. Respondent does state facts upon which he bases his opinion that appellant "continues to cloud the facts with half-truths, innuendo, distortion, and mis-representations." While not a model of syllogistical reasoning, respondent's expression of opinion is constitutionally privileged. Whether the opinion expressed by the author is justified by the facts stated is for the reader of the news article to decide.
Viewing the pleadings in a light most favorable to appellant together with all reasonable inferences therefrom, we hold that the trial court properly sustained respondent's motion to dismiss because the opinions expressed were constitutionally privileged.
Judgment affirmed.
APPENDIX
NEWSLETTER MAY 1979
LAKE ST. LOUIS
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
FROM THE PRESIDENT
This is the finest hour for the City of Lake Saint Louis, the Community Association, and the people. Great progress is being made in several areas and we are fast moving ahead toward our collective goal of becoming the finest community in Missouri.
There are, however, several important issues remaining to be settled. Please recognize that we are dealing with these issues in the interest of all people of Lake Saint Louis.
The original developer of Lake Saint Louis, R. T. Crow, continues to cloud the facts with half-truths, innuendo, distortion, and misrepresentation. This column, to appear in the monthly CA NEWSLETTER, will deal with specific issues that are vital to the continued growth and prosperity of the LSL property owners.
Your elected officials and CA leaders are in a position to present solid facts and will do so in a manner clearly understood by the membership.
In addition, the Community Association will strive to keep you informed with special information nights, neighborhood meetings, and other means. We want you to understand the specific issues that so critically affect us all.
Now let's get down to our first topic.
St. Charles County has apparently "settled" a number of bond disputes involving uncompleted work in the Lake Saint Louis community--but were those issues settled to the advantage of R. T. Crow and Safeco or to the benefit of the people of Lake Saint Louis?
The County required assurance bonds to the tune of $1.2 million from Crow companies during the construction of several subdivisions to guarantee that necessary improvements would be completed. This was done prior to the incorporation of the City.
In other words, the County required that Crow provide some sort of guarantee of completion for the improvements in the case of his default. He did this by purchasing assurance bonds from Safeco General Insurance Co. Safeco was to pay for the work should Crow be unable to do so (which eventually proved to be the case).
April 19 the administrative County Court "settled" for $85,000 from Crow and $85,000 from Safeco and "releases the said parties of any and all liabilities." This amounts to $170,000 by anyone's arithmetic. With an estimated $500,000 in uncompleted work in the community will the County, above other responsibilities, channel its funds to Lake Saint Louis to cover work promised by Crow?
The City's interest is protected on the face of the original bond which stipulates, "Whereas, this bond shall be construed to cover the interest of any municipality in the County of St. Charles whether the property involved is now or shall at any time be included within any municipality and shall be available for the protection of any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henry v. Halliburton
...Co. 684 S.W.2d 473, 479 (Mo.App.1984); Anton v. St. Louis Suburban Newspapers, Inc., 598 S.W.2d 493, 498 (Mo.App.1980); Iverson v. Crow, 639 S.W.2d 118, 119 (Mo.App.1982). However, courts invoking this general principle have not had occasion to address whether the Gertz dicta should be appl......
-
Castle Rock Remodeling, LLC v. Better Bus. Bureau of Greater St. Louis, Inc.
...the statements were expressions of opinion not actionable. See also Diez v. Pearson, 834 S.W.2d 250 (Mo.App. E.D.1992); Iverson v. Crow, 639 S.W.2d 118 (Mo.App. E.D.1982); Anton v. St. Louis Suburban Newspapers, Inc., 598 S.W.2d 493 (Mo.App.E.D.1980). Here, the trial court concluded and thi......
-
Terre Du Lac Ass'n, Inc. v. Terre Du Lac, Inc.
...Realty, 705 S.W.2d at 568. We affirm the order of the trial court if any grounds asserted for dismissal are valid. Iverson v. Crow, 639 S.W.2d 118, 119 n. 2 (Mo.App.1982). The facts alleged in plaintiff's petition which are common to all counts are that Developer represented to the purchase......
-
Buller v. Pulitzer Pub. Co.
...fact. Gertz, supra, at p. 347, 94 S.Ct. at p. 3010; Anton, supra, at p. 498. We said in Anton, supra, at p. 498 and in Iverson v. Crow, 639 S.W.2d 118, 119 (Mo.App.1982) that if a defendant bases his expression of a derogatory opinion of the plaintiff on his own statement of false and defam......