defamation per quod claim in Illinois

2024In determining whether a statement is capable of an innocent construction, the court in Chapski explained “a written or oral statement is to be considered in context, with the words and the implications therefrom given their natural and obvious meaning; if, as so construed, the statement may reasonably be innocently interpreted *** it cannot be actionable per se.” Chapski v. Copley Press, 92 Ill. 2d 344, 352 (1982). ¶ 47 To allege a defamation per quod claim, the plaintiff must plead “extrinsic circumstances [that] demonstrate an injurious meaning behind the statement.” Rivera v. Allstate Insu

2020Tuite, 224 Ill. 2d at 502 ; Bryson, 174 Ill. 2d at 90 . ¶ 43 By contrast, a defamation per quod claim is appropriate either (1) where the defamatory character of a statement is not apparent on its face, and extrinsic evidence is necessary to demonstrate its injurious meaning, or (2) where a statement is defamatory on its face but does not fall into the five categories of statements that are actionable per se.

2024In determining whether a statement is capable of an innocent construction, the court in Chapski explained “a written or oral statement is to be considered in context, with the words and the implications therefrom given their natural and obvious meaning; if, as so construed, the statement may reasonably be innocently interpreted *** it cannot be actionable per se.” Chapski v. Copley Press, 92 Ill. 2d 344, 352 (1982). ¶ 47 To allege a defamation per quod claim, the plaintiff must plead “extrinsic circumstances [that] demonstrate an injurious meaning behind the statement.” Rivera v. Allstate Insu

2024In determining whether a statement is capable of an innocent construction, the court in Chapski explained “a written or oral statement is to be considered in context, with the words and the implications therefrom given their natural and obvious meaning; if, as so construed, the statement may reasonably be innocently interpreted *** it cannot be actionable per se.” Chapski v. Copley Press, 92 Ill. 2d 344, 352 (1982). ¶ 47 To allege a defamation per quod claim, the plaintiff must plead “extrinsic circumstances [that] demonstrate an injurious meaning behind the statement.” Rivera v. Allstate Insu

2022“Only statements capable of being proven true or false are actionable; opinions are not.” Moriarty v. Greene, 315 Ill.

2021App. 3d 260, 266 (1977); see also Anderson v. Vanden Dorpel, 172 Ill. 2d 399, 416 (1996) (“A per quod action requires *** allegations of specific facts establishing the plaintiff’s special damages.”). ¶ 50 Here, plaintiffs’ sole allegation of special damages in counts II and III is that Allstate’s allegedly defamatory statements “have caused [p]laintiffs damages in their business and profession and made it impossible for them to achieve comparable employment in a highly competitive field.” Our decision in Kurczaba v. Pollock, 318 Ill.

2021We agree. ¶ 49 As discussed above, a defamation per quod claim requires plaintiffs to allege that they suffered actual damages of a pecuniary nature—special damages—because of a defamatory - 14 - statement. “[S]pecial damages must be alleged with particularity, and general allegations as to damages are insufficient.” Bruck v. Cincotta, 56 Ill.

2021App. 3d 260, 266 (1977); see also Anderson v. Vanden Dorpel, 172 Ill. 2d 399, 416 (1996) (“A per quod action requires *** allegations of specific facts establishing the plaintiff’s special damages.”). ¶ 50 Here, plaintiffs’ sole allegation of special damages in counts II and III is that Allstate’s allegedly defamatory statements “have caused [p]laintiffs damages in their business and profession and made it impossible for them to achieve comparable employment in a highly competitive field.” Our decision in Kurczaba v. Pollock, 318 Ill.

2021Rivera v. Allstate Insurance Co., 907 F.3d 1031, 1039-41 (7th Cir. 2018) (Rivera I).

2021As the Seventh Circuit noted, the defamation per quod claim “predominated” over the FCRA claim in the district court and in the court of appeals (Rivera II, 913 F.3d at 612 ) and was a particular focus of Rivera I, 907 F.3d 1031 .