Steinhausen v. Homeservices Of Nebraska, Inc.

857 N.W.2d 816 (2015)

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

P began performing home inspections in 1999. After operating the business as a sole proprietorship, Steinhausen formed Steinhausen Home Inspections LLC (SHI) in 2004. SHI's primary business is home inspections, but it also performs commercial property inspections and offers consulting services. In 2008, Nitz (D) represented the seller of a home and a potential buyer exercised her right to a home inspection, and P performed the inspection. Nitz (D) testified that some of the items in P's report 'were unquestionably beyond the scope of a typical home inspection.' Nitz (D) felt that P's comments on 'non-condition related items' were 'likely to tear apart transactions when Nebraska Advance Sheets property condition was not a real issue, to the detriment of a seller.' HomeServices (D) provides its real estate agents with access to a company e-mail network. Agents use the systems Hotsheets as a forum to share information and opinions on topics related to the real estate business. They obtain information, market properties, and discuss current issues or questions on which they share a common interest, for example, questions or comments about particular aspects of real estate transactions, availability of properties and developments, real estate rules, regulations and practices and how they relate to real estate transactions or questions or comments about vendors who work in the real estate sales community. On January 14, 2011, Nitz (D) posted a reply to an e-mail on the Hotsheets with the subject 'RE: Steinhausen inspections.' The e-mail stated in its entirety: 'He did an inspection in Seward for the agent that sold one of my listings. I will never let him near one of my listings ever again!!! Total idiot.' At least two other HomeServices (D) agents sent e-mails on the same subject to the Hotsheets before Nitz (D) sent her e-mail. The author of the first e-mail stated, 'IN MY OPINION,' P was not qualified to inspect residential structures. The author of the second e-mail stated that inspections performed by P were poor and that P addressed issues unrelated to structural soundness. After Nitz (D) sent her e-mail, another HomeServices agent replied that P was 'not professional.' P filed a complaint with the State Real Estate Commission. The commission ordered Nitz (D) to complete 6 hours of ethics courses. P sued Ds. P testified that several D agents dissuaded their clients from contracting with SHI. P estimated that he suffered $30,000 per year in lost business and would continue to suffer the same losses for the next 25 years. P filed pro se, with the complaint-stating claims of libel, false light invasion of privacy, and tortious interference with a business relationship or expectancy. Ds responded that the statement was protected by a qualified privilege. They moved for summary judgment and it was granted. P appealed.