## Facts

- R. John Riggins was a well-known former professional football player who earned post-career income largely through paid endorsements and appearances, charging fees for commercial uses of his name.
- After Riggins and Mary Lou Riggins divorced, he conveyed his interest in their Vienna, Virginia home to Mary Lou under a property-settlement agreement.
- Mary Lou became a real-estate salesperson affiliated with Town & Country Properties, Inc., a Northern Virginia brokerage firm.
- To market the home for sale, Mary Lou and Town & Country prepared and distributed a flyer for a brokers’ open house.
- The flyer described the property as “John Riggins’ Former Home,” with Riggins’s name printed in larger type to make it stand out.
- The flyer included Town & Country’s branding and Mary Lou’s contact information, and about 1,600 copies were distributed to area real-estate offices.
- Town & Country did not obtain Riggins’s written consent or notify him before using his name.
- The house sold about ten days later, generating a brokerage commission of about $44,700 for Town & Country.
- Riggins sued under Virginia Code § 8.01-40(A) for unauthorized use of his name for advertising purposes; a jury awarded compensatory damages and punitive damages.
- The trial court entered judgment on the verdict; Town & Country appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether using “John Riggins’ Former Home” on a real-estate flyer without written consent was a use of his name “for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade” under Va. Code § 8.01-40(A), and whether applying the statute to this commercial advertisement violated the First Amendment.
2. Whether the evidence supported the compensatory damages award and whether punitive damages had to be reduced to comply with pleading (ad damnum) and other legal limits.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Virginia held that Town & Country’s flyer used Riggins’s name “for advertising purposes” within Va. Code § 8.01-40(A) and that applying the statute to this conduct did not violate the First Amendment.
- The court affirmed the compensatory damages award as supported by the evidence of the market value of Riggins’s name and the commercial character of the use.
- The court reduced the punitive damages to conform to the amount properly claimed and applicable limits and affirmed the judgment as modified.

## Legal Principles

- Va. Code § 8.01-40(A) imposes civil liability when a person’s name is used, without prior written consent, “for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade.”
- A promotional flyer designed to generate interest in a sale and commissions constitutes advertising; emphasizing a celebrity’s name to attract attention is a trade/advertising use within the statute.
- A state may protect an individual’s proprietary interest in the commercial value of a name against unauthorized appropriation in commercial advertising without violating the First Amendment; the statute targets commercial exploitation, not news, commentary, or public-interest reporting.
- Compensatory damages for unauthorized commercial use may be supported by testimony regarding the plaintiff’s practice of charging for endorsements/appearances and expert evidence of market value.
- Punitive damages are subject to reduction on appeal when they exceed the amount demanded in the pleadings (ad damnum) or other governing limits.

## Conclusion

The court upheld liability for unauthorized commercial use of John Riggins’s name in a real-estate advertising flyer under Va. Code § 8.01-40(A), rejected a First Amendment defense because the use was purely commercial advertising, affirmed compensatory damages, and reduced punitive damages to comply with pleading and legal limits.


Town & Country Props., Inc. v. Riggins, 249 Va. 387, 457 S.E.2d 356 (Va. 1995)