PA Appellate Court Rules Against Elder Care Planning Company Suing Elder Law Attorney for Defamation

In a “nonprecedential memorandum” — but still interesting opinion — filed on February 14, 2018, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of defendants on an issue of defamation. The plaintiff is a retirement or planning company and the defendants are a law firm and an elder law specialist attorney in that firm.  The plaintiff alleged defamation and intentional interference with business relationships via letters on the law firm’s letterhead that were signed by the defendant Attorney while serving on a county senior citizens board. 

The letters allegedly pointed to certain marketing presentations from companies that present programs on living trusts and estate planning, referencing plaintiff as “one such company.” According to the court opinion, the “correspondence characterized the presentations as a ‘sinister form of financial exploitation of the elderly’ that ‘often result in seniors losing thousands of dollars in unnecessary fees for documents they do not need,’ and that ‘can also result in the sale of investments that are not appropriate for seniors.’”   

The plaintiff Company’s lawsuit was filed in January 2008.

The defendants sought summary judgment on the defamation count in October 2016.  

Under Pennsylvania statutory law, 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 8343(a)(6), a plaintiff has the burden of proving specific elements of defamation including “special harm resulting to the plaintiff from . . . publication” of the alleged defamatory communication.  The defendants argued the plaintiff was unable to satisfy that element.

In the memorandum opinion, the Superior Court concluded:

Appellant incorrectly maintains that it did not have to prove the existence of any harm because the letter in question accused it of engaging in misconduct or fraud in marketing living trusts to senior citizens. While it did not have to establish economic loss, it did have to adduce some proof that its business reputation was affected by the communication. Appellant admitted to the trial court that it could present no witness to attest that its reputation in the community was harmed due to the dissemination of the correspondence in question. Since Appellant had the burden of proving that aspect of its defamation cause of action, summary judgment was properly entered herein.

For more, read the nonprecedential opinion in United Senior Advisors Group, Inc., v. Leisawitz Heller Abromowitch, Phillips., PC., and William R. Blumer.  The final footnote in the opinion suggests the summary judgment ruling resolves only the defamation count in this long running suit.