Opinion
ED110326
12-13-2022
Attorney for Appellant: Kathleen A. Wolz, Ted R. Osburn, Mark R. Dunn, Michael J. Ponder, Matthew R. Davis, Theresa A. Appelbaum, Jeffrey J. Lowe, and Paul A. Maddock Attorney for Respondent: Dan H. Ball, Randy P. Scheer, Robert T. Ebert, Jr., S. Jacob Sappington, Alicia E. Ragsdale, Barbara A. Smith, William A. Brasher, Carolyn Browne
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cape Girardeau County Cause No. 19CG-CC00090, Honorable William E. Reeves, Judge
Attorney for Appellant: Kathleen A. Wolz, Ted R. Osburn, Mark R. Dunn, Michael J. Ponder, Matthew R. Davis, Theresa A. Appelbaum, Jeffrey J. Lowe, and Paul A. Maddock
Attorney for Respondent: Dan H. Ball, Randy P. Scheer, Robert T. Ebert, Jr., S. Jacob Sappington, Alicia E. Ragsdale, Barbara A. Smith, William A. Brasher, Carolyn Browne
OPINION
Thomas C. Clark II, J.
SEMO Services, Inc. (SEMO) appeals the Cape Girardeau circuit court judgment granting summary judgment in favor of BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY(BNSF) on SEMO's multiple count petition. In Point I, SEMO argues there is a genuine issue of material fact whether BNSF's actions were justified and SEMO had an expectation of a continued business relationship with R.J. Corman Railroad Group, LLC(RJC) under the tortious interference claim. In Point II, SEMO contends a genuine issue of material fact exists whether BNSF published a letter and subsequent email containing a defamatory statement that BNSF was "in receipt" of SEMO's fraudulent invoice. In Point III, SEMO claims the trial court erred granting summary judgment in favor of BNSF on its affirmative defenses to SEMO's defamation claim. In Point IV, SEMO asserts summary judgment was improper because its clam for injurious falsehood exists independently of any underlying claim for defamation. Finally, in Point V, SEMO asserts a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether BNSF acted willfully, wantonly or with a reckless disregard for the consequences when it made the defamatory statement against SEMO, making summary judgment on SEMO's claim for punitive damages also erroneous.
AFFIRMED.
Division Two Holds: The undisputed facts establish that BNSF did not use improper means when interfering in SEMO's business relationship with RJC, and SEMO could not reasonably anticipate a continued business relationship with RJC on BNSF projects due to the contractual agreement, thus BNSF was entitled to summary judgment on SEMO's claim for tortious interference. The undisputed facts also show the statement at issue is not defamatory, but instead the contents of the letter and subsequent email are true or substantially true. As a result, summary judgment was proper in favor of BNSF on SEMO's claim for defamation. Since our analysis of the propriety of summary judgment on SEMO's claim for defamation is dispositive, we do not address SEMO's claim that summary judgment was not proper on BNSF's affirmative defenses. In addition, because the law requires that the statement must be defamatory to be actionable under injurious falsehood, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of BNSF on SEMO's claim for injurious falsehood. Since we affirm the trial court decision to grant summary judgment in favor of BNSF on each of SEMO's underlying causes of action, the claim for punitive damages also fails and summary judgment in favor of BNSF was not erroneous.
Lisa P. Page, PJ, and Kurt S Odenwald, J, concur