## Facts

- A severe hailstorm in central Indiana generated a large volume of insurance claims, including tens of thousands submitted to State Farm.
- Joseph Martin Radcliff and his company, Coastal Property Management, LLC (CPM), performed repairs for homeowners and assisted some State Farm insureds with hail-damage claims.
- State Farm began an insurance-fraud investigation targeting Radcliff/CPM after public criticism of State Farm’s claim handling.
- State Farm representatives communicated accusations that Radcliff/CPM were involved in insurance and roofing fraud to law enforcement and others; the accusations became public and received media attention.
- Radcliff was arrested on multiple felony counts related to alleged insurance fraud; the charges were later dismissed under a diversion agreement.
- State Farm sued Radcliff/CPM for fraud and racketeering based on the hail-claim-related conduct.
- Radcliff/CPM counterclaimed for defamation, alleging State Farm’s false accusations caused reputational ruin and the collapse of the business.
- After a multi-week jury trial with extensive witness testimony, the jury found for Radcliff/CPM on defamation and awarded $14.5 million in damages.

## Issues

1. Whether State Farm’s accusations to law enforcement and others were shielded from defamation liability by a qualified common-law privilege for reporting suspected crimes or by statutory immunity for insurance-fraud reporting.
2. Whether the statements accusing Radcliff/CPM of insurance fraud constituted defamation per se under Indiana law.
3. Whether the evidence supported the compensatory damages award and whether $14.5 million was excessive or the product of passion or prejudice.

## Decision

- The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for Radcliff/CPM.
- The court held State Farm was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on privilege or statutory immunity because those protections were qualified and could be lost through abuse (including malice or lack of reasonable grounds).
- The court upheld the jury’s finding of defamation per se because the statements imputed criminal conduct and disparaged Radcliff’s fitness in his occupation.
- The court upheld the $14.5 million award, finding sufficient evidence of substantial economic loss and severe reputational harm and concluding the award was not so excessive as to require appellate intervention.

## Legal Principles

- Statements imputing serious criminal conduct, or charging misconduct that harms a person in the person’s trade or profession, constitute defamation per se in Indiana; general damages may be presumed.
- Indiana recognizes a qualified privilege for good-faith reports of suspected criminal activity to law enforcement, but the privilege may be defeated by abuse, including malice or reckless disregard for truth.
- Statutory protections for reporting suspected insurance fraud are not absolute; they do not bar liability for communications or conduct outside good-faith reporting to appropriate authorities or for knowingly false or recklessly made accusations.
- Appellate review of jury verdicts and damage awards is deferential; large defamation awards may be affirmed when supported by evidence and not indicative of passion, prejudice, or improper considerations.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a $14.5 million defamation verdict against an insurer, holding that accusations of insurance fraud were actionable as defamation per se and that crime-reporting privilege and fraud-reporting immunity did not provide a categorical defense where the jury could find the protections were abused.


State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Radcliff, 987 N.E.2d 121 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013)