MIAMI CHILD'S WORLD, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
SUNBEAM TELEVISION CORP. D/B/A WSVN CHANNEL 7 AND JON STEINBERG, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Miami Child's World appealed a summary judgment dismissing its defamation and tortious interference claims against a television station and reporter. The court affirmed, holding that the reporter's statements were pure opinion and that the allegedly interfering broadcast aired after the relevant business negotiations, making intentional interference impossible as a matter of law.
Summary judgment was properly granted on both counts. As to defamation, the reporter's characterizations constituted pure opinion with fully disclosed factual basis, which cannot support an actionable defamation claim. As to tortious interference, the broadcast aired after the relevant business meeting and thus could not constitute intentional and unjustified interference, and the business agreement had expired by its own terms.
[1] Statements of pure opinion, based on fully disclosed facts, cannot constitute actionable defamation.
[2] A news broadcast aired after a relevant commission meeting cannot constitute intentional and unjustified interference with a business relationship.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Statements of pure opinion cannot constitute actionable defamation.... 'Pure opinion occurs when the defendant makes a [*337] comment or opinion based on facts which are set forth in the article or which are otherwise known or available to the reader or listener as a member of the public.'”
Establishes the legal standard for when opinion statements are protected from defamation liability.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChild's World brought a two-count complaint against Sunbeam Television Corporation and Jon Steinberg alleging defamation and tortious interference wit…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Elements Of Tortious Interference cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff, Miami Child’s World, Inc. [Child’s World], appeals from an adverse final summary judgment. We affirm.
In the underlying case, Child’s World brought a two-count complaint against the defendants, Sunbeam Television Corporation and Jon Steinberg, alleging defamation and tortious interference with a business relationship. The trial court found that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the defendants were entitled to final summary judgment as a matter of law. We agree.
As to the count for defamation, the trial court properly granted summary judgment where the reporter’s characterizations constituted pure opinion, the basis of which was fully disclosed within the news broadcast. Stembridge v. Mintz, 652 So. 2d 444, 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Gellert, 438 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (“[Statements of pure opinion cannot constitute actionable defamation.... ‘Pure opinion occurs when the defendant makes a comment or opinion based on facts which are set forth in the article or which are otherwise known or available to the reader or listener as a member of the public.’ ”) (quoting From v. Tallahassee Democrat, Inc., 400 So. 2d 52, 57 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), [review denied, 412 So. 2d 465 (Fla.1982)]) (citations omitted).
As to the count for tortious interference with a business relationship, we find that the trial court properly granted summary judgment where the news broadcast in question aired after the relevant City of Miami Beach Commission meeting and consequently, could not have constituted intentional and unjustified interference with a business relationship. International Funding Corp. v. Krasner, 360 So. 2d 1156, 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (“The elements of the tort of interference with a business relationship are (1) existence of a business relationship under which the claimant has legal rights, (2) intentional and unjustified interference with that relationship by defendant, and (3) damage to the claimant as a result of the breach of the business relationship.”). Additionally, we find that the business agreement was completely defined by the purchase and sale agreement and that it expired by its own terms.
Therefore, the trial court properly granted summary judgment as to both counts, and we affirm.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Joseph Magre, M.D. v. Michael J. Charles, M.D., 729 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…came after Dr. Magre’s reinstatement with full staff privileges. Thus the letter would not constitute intentional and unjustified interference with a business relationship with the hospital. See Miami Child’s World, Inc. v. Sunbeam Television Corp., 669 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (allegedly defamatory news broadcast could not have constituted intentional and unjustified interference with a business relationship between the city and the plaintiff where the news broadcast was aired after the relevant meeting…
-
Turner v. Wells, 879 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2018)…182 So. 3d 881, 884 n.1 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016) (“Statements of pure opinion, are not actionable.”); Anson v. Paxson Commc’ns Corp., 736 So. 2d 1209, 1211 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999); Miami Child’s World, Inc. v. Sunbeam Television Corp., 669 So. 2d 336, 336 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996). Under Florida law, a defendant publishes a “pure opinion” when the defendant makes a comment or opinion based on facts which are set forth in the publication or which are otherwise known or available to the reade…
-
Hayduk v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 930 F. Supp. 584 (S.D. Fla. 1996)…nships by Teamsters; 3. damage to UPS as a result of the breach of the relationships. International Funding Corp. v. Krasner, 360 So.2d 1156, 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA, 1978). See also Miami Child’s World, Inc. v. Sunbeam, Television Corp., 669 So.2d 336, 337 (Fla. 3d DCA, 1996); Babbit Elecs., Inc. v. Dynascan Corp., 38 F.3d 1161, 1177 (11th Cir.1994) (per curiam). Examining these elements, it is essential to determine whether any of them requires an interpretation of the CBA, it is not e…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Shaw From v. Tallahassee Democrat, Inc., 400 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- E. AIR Lines, Inc. v. Gellert, 438 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Stembridge v. Mintz, 652 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Int'l Funding Corp. v. Krasner, 360 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)