Tronfeld v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
636 S.E.2d 447, 2006 Va. LEXIS 101, 272 Va. 709 (2006)
Rule of Law:
Statements that prejudice a person in their profession are actionable as defamation per se if they contain a provably false factual connotation, rather than being pure expressions of opinion that depend largely on the speaker's viewpoint.
Facts:
- Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company employed Todd Schmitt as an insurance adjuster.
- Schmitt met with Donald Spellman to discuss settling a personal injury claim Spellman had against a Nationwide insured.
- During the meeting, Spellman indicated he was considering hiring attorney Jay Tronfeld.
- In response, Schmitt stated that Tronfeld "just takes peoples' money."
- Schmitt also stated that clients of Tronfeld would receive more money for their claims if they dealt directly with the adjuster instead of hiring Tronfeld.
- At the time, Tronfeld was a practicing personal injury attorney who actively marketed his firm's services to the public.
Procedural Posture:
- Jay Tronfeld filed a lawsuit for defamation per se against Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and its employee, Todd Schmitt, in the Circuit Court of the City of Petersburg (a state trial court).
- The Defendants filed a demurrer, arguing that the alleged statements were legally protected expressions of opinion.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer, agreeing with the Defendants that the statements were opinion and not actionable.
- A final order was entered dismissing Tronfeld's case.
- Tronfeld (as appellant) was granted an appeal to the Supreme Court of Virginia to challenge the trial court's dismissal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do an insurance adjuster's statements that a specific attorney "just takes peoples' money" and that his clients would receive more money without his representation constitute non-actionable opinion, or do they contain a provably false factual connotation sufficient to support a claim for defamation per se?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice G. Steven Agee
No. An insurance adjuster's statements that an attorney 'just takes peoples' money' and that his clients would be financially better off without him are not protected opinion because they contain a provably false factual connotation. These statements are capable of being proven true or false with evidence and thus can support a cause of action for defamation per se. The court reasoned that the statement that Tronfeld 'just takes people's money' implies he provides no value for his fee, a claim which can be disproven by evidence of settlements or judgments he has obtained for clients. Similarly, the statement that clients would get more money without him can be proven false by comparing an insurance company's pre-representation offer to the final recovery amount obtained by Tronfeld. The court distinguished this case from prior precedent in Chaves, where calling a professional fee 'unreasonable' was deemed opinion because reasonableness is subjective. Here, the statements are analogous to the actionable statement in Fuste that doctors had 'abandoned their patients,' which was also deemed capable of factual proof.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the boundary between actionable defamatory fact and protected opinion, particularly in the context of professional criticism. It establishes that statements implying poor professional performance are not automatically shielded as opinion if their underlying assertions can be empirically verified or falsified. The ruling serves as a caution to competitors or adversaries, such as insurance adjusters speaking about plaintiffs' attorneys, that statements about quantifiable outcomes (like financial recovery) will be treated as factual assertions. This precedent strengthens defamation claims for professionals whose reputation is attacked with statements that, while sounding like opinion, are grounded in measurable, and therefore provably false, facts.
