ILNews

Contractor wins on appeal of $14.5M damages award for defamation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. is on the hook for $14.5 million in damages after a contractor prevailed on his defamation claim against the insurer. The award is one of the largest defamation damages in the country, according to the court.

State Farm was in the midst of receiving bad press for its denial of homeowners’ claims for hail damage to their roofs following a 2006 spring storm in central Indiana. Joseph Radcliff created Coastal Property Management to help State Farm homeowners identify and repair damage, and file claims. State Farm began looking into CPM’s work, and the insurer hired engineers to inspect roofs of homeowners whose claims were denied. Some reports showed damage caused by hail or wind, but some claimed that mechanical damage was caused intentionally by CPM. State Farm only forwarded information unfavorable toward CPM to the National Insurance Crime Bureau, which forwarded its findings to the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department.

Radcliff was arrested for multiple counts including insurance fraud, attempted theft and corrupt business influence. After his arrest, State Farm issued a statement to an Indianapolis television station that had covered State Farm’s denial of claims, saying the company is committed to fighting fraud. Radcliff’s arrest led his company to lose significant business.

The charges were dropped after Radcliff admitted there was probable cause for his arrest for misdemeanor criminal mischief. Later, State Farm filed a lawsuit in Hamilton County against Radcliff and his company, alleging racketeering and insurance fraud. Radcliff countersued for defamation and won the large damages award after a six-week trial in 2011.

In State Farm Fire & Casualty Company v. Joseph Martin Radcliff and Coastal Property Management LLC, a/k/a CPM Construction of Indiana, 29A04-1111-CT-571, State Farm appealed, arguing that its communications with NICB and IMPD were protected by statutory immunity and a common-law privilege for reporting crime, and that Radcliff failed to prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence.

 Judge Nancy Vaidik authored the 61-page unanimous decision, writing that evidence shows State Farm lacked grounds for belief in the truth of their statements sent to NICB because they only sent portions of the reports that were favorable to their claims. Evidence also pointed to CPM being targeted because Radcliff talked to the local news about State Farm’s denial of claims and the insurer had faced recent bad press.

“Here, the jury heard testimony of a man whose whole world – professionally and personally – was destroyed by State Farm’s accusations and the accusations’ role in his arrest, and it heard from Dr. (Bruce) Jaffee, who testified that Radcliff had $7.5 million in lost earnings, and Dr. (Kim) Saxton, who explained that Radcliff’s reputation was in a ‘virtually unrecoverable’ place. The jury’s damage award does not punish State Farm; rather, it attempts to compensate Radcliff for the longstanding consequences it caused on the only profession that Radcliff ever knew. Accordingly, the $14.5 million damage award is not excessive,” Vaidik wrote.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT