HARRISBURG – Summary judgment for two companies accused of defaming a competing business in a YouTube video shown to customers was affirmed in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania on April 23.
The appeals court sided with Luxury Bath of Pittsburgh and Re-Bath in Bath Fitter’s lawsuit against them. All three companies compete against each other in one-day bathroom remodeling.
Bath Fitter sued after the owner of Re-Bath created a video that suggested it had deceptive performance in remodeling bathrooms. Luxury Bath then showed it to a number of its clients. Bath Fitter said its actions cost it $1 million and sued for commercial disparagement, intentional interference with contractual relations, trademark infringement, unfair competition and civil conspiracy.
The Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and the appeals court affirmed the judgment.
Bath Fitter first said in its appeal that the lower court erred when it sided with the defendants’ argument that Bath Fitter didn’t submit evidence to prove its damages.
“Based on our review of the certified record on appeal, we conclude that the trial court did not err in determining that Bath Fitter failed to present any evidence to actual harm to support a defamation per se claim,” Judge Mary Murray wrote, with judges Susan Gantman and Jacqueline Shogan concurring.
She added that Bath Fitter couldn’t pinpoint one person who would testify they saw the video and confirm that it made Bath Fitter look bad. Bath Fitter failed to connect its $1 million sales loss to the actual video.
Bath Fitter also argued the lower court erred in green-lighting summary judgment for the defendants concerning the statute of limitations for the defamation per se claim. The appeals court said it didn’t need to look at this issue because the defamation claim was already dismissed for another reason.
As for Bath Fitter’s challenge that the lower court granted the summary judgment during the discovery phase, Murray wrote, “Ultimately, even though there was discovery outstanding, this court concluded that the appellants failed to establish either the materiality or due diligence of the discovery they sought, as they provided no explanation as to why they could not obtain the discovery in the nearly three years since the filing of the complaint.”
In fact, discovery was into play for more than five years before the defendants were granted summary judgment. During that five years, Bath Fitter still didn’t show any evidence that the defendants were to blame for its $1 million loss in sales.
Bath Fitter also didn’t show the appeals court how it could grant relief in other issues like the appellees violating the local rules when they supposedly didn’t file motions on time.
They each install acrylic bath and shower liners on top of bathtubs and showers for competitive costs. In 2010, Christopher Horney who owns Re-Bath, produced a video about Bath Fitter, making it look as if it had bad business practices and manipulated their customers. One example referenced was a clip that made it seem as if Bath Fitter used double-sided tape to secure the bathtub and shower liners with the acrylic lining instead of the industry standard of epoxy glue.
The video was uploaded to YouTube in March 2011. Luxury Bath came into the picture after one of its salesmen showed the video to between five and 10 possible new clients. Bath Fitter heard about the video in February 2012 and filed a lawsuit against Luxury Bath and Re-Bath the following June. The lower court granted the defendants their motions for summary judgment. Bath Fitter then appealed.