## Facts

- Robert A. Boese, a forensic chemist, analyzed debris from a residential fire for an insurer and reported that an accelerant was present; the insurer denied the homeowner’s claim.
- The homeowner, Virginia Weathers, was prosecuted for aggravated arson; Boese testified, and Weathers was acquitted.
- Weathers later won a large civil judgment against the insurer arising from the claim denial.
- A nationally broadcast *Hard Copy* segment recounted the fire, the denied claim, the criminal case, and the civil verdict, and included footage of Boese testifying.
- Near the end of the segment, Weathers stated that “everybody lied all the way down the line.”
- Boese sued the broadcaster, producers, reporter, and Weathers, alleging the segment’s editing and context conveyed that he lied in his professional work and/or under oath.

## Issues

1. Whether the segment’s statement(s) and implication(s), including “everybody lied all the way down the line,” constituted defamation per se or statutory defamation per se under Illinois law as to Boese.
2. Whether the segment placed Boese in a false light by implying dishonesty in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person, and whether a triable issue existed on actual malice.

## Decision

- Summary judgment was granted for defendants on defamation per se and statutory defamation per se.
- Summary judgment was denied on the false light invasion of privacy claim.

## Legal Principles

- Defamation requires an actionable statement that is sufficiently factual to be objectively provable true or false; rhetorical, non-verifiable statements are treated as nonactionable opinion.
- Under Illinois’s innocent construction rule, if a statement reasonably admits an innocent, non-defamatory meaning, courts must adopt that meaning at the pleading/threshold stage for per se defamation categories.
- A statement not directed specifically at the plaintiff, and plausibly referring broadly to multiple actors, is less likely to satisfy per se defamation requirements.
- False light focuses on whether the publication, taken as a whole (including editing, juxtaposition, and visuals), creates a misleading and highly offensive implication about the plaintiff.
- For matters of public concern, false light liability requires proof of actual malice—knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth—and inadequate verification or failure to seek comment may support an inference of reckless disregard depending on the record.

## Conclusion

The court held that the broadcast’s “everybody lied” remark was non-verifiable opinion and reasonably susceptible to an innocent reading, defeating Illinois defamation per se theories, but found a triable issue that the segment’s overall presentation could imply Boese lied under oath or in his expert work, supporting a false light claim with disputed actual malice.


Boese v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 952 F. Supp. 550 (N.D. Ill. 1996)