Greenmoss Builders, Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.

461 A.2d 414 (1983)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Dun & Bradstreet (D) provides subscribers with financial and related information about businesses. Under the terms of its subscription agreement, all the information is private, and it may not be revealed to anyone else. D notified Greenmoss' (P) creditors that P had filed for bankruptcy. That report was false and grossly misrepresented P’s assets and liabilities. P learned of the report while at his bank. P demanded a correction because the statement was not true. P also demanded to know the names of all the firms that had been sent the report. Eventually, D sent out a notice to the five parties who had received the report. The notice stated that one of P’s former employees and not P had filed for bankruptcy and that P continued in business as usual. P regarded that retraction as totally inadequate. D refused to disclose the identity of the five subscribers who had requested the reports. While this suit was pending D issued P a 'blank rating,' indicating that P's circumstances were 'difficult to classify' within S's rating system, and such information was distributed to those creditors who requested a current indication of P's financial status. P sued for libel. The trial court determined that the error was generated when one of D’s employees, a 17-year-old high school student who was paid to review Vermont bankruptcy pleadings inadvertently attributed to P a bankruptcy petition filed by one of P’s former employees. D testified that it did not try to verify the information about P before it reported it even though it was a routine practice to make accuracy checks. P got a judgment for compensatory ($50,000) and punitive damages ($300,000). The trial court believed that Gertz controlled the case and granted D's motion for a new trial and an instruction based on a showing of actual malice for damages. This action is pursuant to an interlocutory order by the Washington Superior Court, V.R.A.P. 5(b)(1), certifying five questions of law. (1) Did the trial court err in granting defendant's motion for a new trial on all issues? (2) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, should the court have entered judgment on the verdict? (3) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, should the court have ordered a new trial on: (a) damages only? (b) compensatory damages only? (c) punitive damages only? (4) Did the court err in denying all motions of the defendant for judgment notwithstanding the verdict? (5) If the answer to the fourth question is in the affirmative, should the court have: (a) granted defendant's motion to enter judgment for the defendant on the issue of punitive damages, notwithstanding the verdict? (b) granted the motion of the defendant for judgment on the issue of compensatory damages, notwithstanding the verdict? (c) granted judgment for the defendant on all issues?