United States: Defamation And The Common Interest Privilege In The Construction Industry

Last Updated: September 7 2015
Article by David A. Kluft

Construction projects often involve a complex array of contractors, subcontractors, banks, bonding agents, architects, engineers and so on. With that many parties depending on each other to complete a project, negative statements about the quality and integrity of other peoples' work often arise. Such statements, if false, may give rise to defamation claims. However, even a false statement may be protected from liability by a "common interest" privilege. Two recent Massachusetts cases address what kinds of statements qualify for common interest privilege protection in matters related to the construction industry.

Defamation and Qualified Privileges

The law of defamation tends to vary from state to state. In Massachusetts, defamation is defined as the publication of a statement of fact (i.e., not opinion) concerning the plaintiff that is both false and capable of damaging the plaintiff's reputation. The statement must be published with the requisite fault — anywhere from negligence to willful lying, depending on the circumstances — and it must cause actual harm or be the type of statement presumed to cause harm.

A statement that satisfies these elements may nevertheless enjoy the protection of a "qualified" or "conditional" privilege, such as the common interest (or "shared interest") privilege. This privilege applies when the publisher and recipient of a statement share a common interest in the subject, and the statement is reasonably calculated to further that interest. The common interest privilege is most often invoked in the employment context, where an employer has a conditional privilege to disclose potentially defamatory matter about an employee's job performance to those who share an interest in that performance, such as the employee's manager, and in some cases customers or co-workers. The privilege may also arise in the context of a legal duty, such as a school principal's duty to share with parents information that may affect the welfare of their child. In Massachusetts, the privilege is considered an affirmative defense, but some jurisdictions describe it as an additional element (i.e., the element that the statement is "unprivileged").

The common interest privilege can be "abused" and thereby forfeited in certain circumstances. In Massachusetts, a conditional privilege is abused if it is (1) published with constitutional or "actual" malice, i.e., knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard as to its truth; (2) published with common law malice, i.e., ill will or in bad faith; or (3) recklessly over-published to too many people, or to those who had no need to know the information.

Defining the Common Interest Privilege in the Construction Industry

Two recent Massachusetts Appeals Court decisions provide useful guidance about where to draw the line when applying the common interest privilege in the construction industry.

The first case, Downey v. Chutehall Construction Co., 86 Mass. App. Ct. 660 (2014), is a fairly typical application of the privilege. In that case, a homeowner hired the plaintiff, a roofing contractor, to install a roof. The homeowner later hired the defendant (another roofing professional) to investigate the cause of a leak in that roof. The defendant's report to the homeowner stated that the roof was "substandard" and had been installed by the plaintiff over soaking wet fiberboard insulation. The Appeals Court held that the report was protected by the common interest privilege. The defendant shared a common interest with the homeowner in evaluating the source of the leak so repairs could be made, and the statements in question advanced that interest. Moreover, there was no evidence that the privilege was abused through common law malice (there was no evidence of ill will), excessive publication (the statement was made only to the homeowners) or constitutional malice (the investigation was professional and not reckless).

But the privilege did not apply in Sturm Corp. v. Gilbane Building Company, 87 Mass. App. Ct. 1138 (2015). In that case, the defendant, a construction management company, became dissatisfied with the work of the plaintiff, a crane inspection company, and removed the plaintiff from an approved list of crane inspectors. Even though the defendant was now no longer working with the plaintiff, the defendant nevertheless told other construction companies that the plaintiff's work was "no good," "shoddy" and "not up to par." The Court held that the defendant's statements were not protected by a qualified privilege. Unlike the parties in Downey v. Chutehall, here the defendant was no longer working on any project that would be affected by the plaintiff's allegedly shoddy work, so it had no interest in common with the recipients of the message. The Court rejected the defendant's argument that construction companies shared a common interest in "crane safety;" a general industry-wide concern about safety was too unspecific to enjoy a qualified privilege where it did not arise from a mutual interest in the safety of a particular building site.

Other Common Interests Protected by the Privilege

Other types of statements that may be protected by the common interest privilege include:

Statements by architects to owners. Architects are generally treated as having a professional duty to the project owner and thus a common interest in the project. Therefore, their statements to owners about the performance of contractors are often protected by the common interest privilege. In Sato Construction Co. v. 17&24 Corp., 2010 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4437 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 7, 2010), the Court held that an architect's statement to a building owner that there was "sufficient cause" to terminate a window installation subcontractor was conditionally privileged. In Meinhard v. Creasy, 2008 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 648 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. Jan. 25, 2008), an architect's report to a homeowner criticizing a contractor's work quality, professionalism and billing practices was "obviously protected" by the common interest privilege. And in E. Construction v. Earl R. Flansburg & Assoc., 1 Mass. L. Rep. 250 (Mass. Super. Ct. 1993), an architectural firm was asked to investigate the bidders on a school construction project, and reported that one bidder had an "abominable" record, barely qualified for the job, and that most of its large projects ended up in litigation. The Court held that report was conditionally privileged (and disregarded the plaintiff's curious objection that the report, even if accurate, was unnecessarily thorough).

Statements by contractors about other contractors. Generally, a contractor working on a project has a qualified privilege to discuss the project with the owner and other entities with a common business interest in the project. In Briggs v. Newton, 984 P. 2d 1113 (Alaska 1999), a new contractor told the owner that the previous contractor's work was of low quality and that he had purposely underbid the job. The Court held that these statements were privileged because they contained information necessary for the accomplishment of a joint business interest, i.e., financing and completing the unfinished project. Similarly, in Lull v. Wick Construction, 614 P. 2d 321 (Alaska 1980), the general contractor charged with building the Juneau courthouse enjoyed a conditional privilege to tell the project's bank and bonding agent that a fireproofing subcontractor was in default for non-performance.

Communications among state agencies. Communication between government entities about public construction projects will often be privileged. In Irwin-Yaeger v. Wash. State Community College, 2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 1139 (Wash. Ct. App. June 2, 2015), staff members in charge of a reviewing bids on a building project at a state college communicated their prior bad experiences with a plumbing subcontractor to the state agency charged with overseeing public construction projects. The Court held that, even if the college and the state agency should be considered separate entities, they clearly shared a common interest in the project in question.

Unprotected Statements and Abuse

When deciding that a statement is not protected by the privilege, courts often blur the line between a statement that was never privileged in the first place, and a statement that was privileged but has lost protection because the privilege was abused. In either case, the end result is the absence of protection. The following circumstances may give rise to the non-application, or abuse, of the common interest privilege:

Alerting the Media. Perhaps the most self-evident form of abuse of the common interest privilege is when an otherwise privileged statement makes its way to the press, thus becoming over-published. In Johnson Controls v. Heery Intl, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9608 (N.D. Tex. July 7, 2000), a consultant's report to a school committee that a contractor had not done the required work was privileged, but the leak of the same report to the Dallas Morning News was a possible abuse that precluded summary judgment. In Brown v. Kelly Broadcasting Co., 48 Cal. 3d 711 (Cal. 1989), the defendant took a different approach and argued that the public at large (and by extension the media) shared a common interest with respect to all public construction projects, but the Court rejected this broad interpretation.

Telling the Neighbors. Just because two parties both would like to see a project finished, that doesn't mean they share a truly common interest. In Levine v. Steve Scharn Custom Homes, Inc., 448 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. 2014), a dispute between a developer and contractor caused the project to sit idle, and neighbors complained about the eyesore. In response to these complaints, the developer explained that the contractor was a "crook" and encouraged the neighbors to spread the word. The Court held that there was no common interest between the developer and the neighbors. The neighbors, who were not in the market for a contractor, had no legitimate interest in the quality of the contractor's work. Sure, in one sense the neighbors and the developer were both interested in completion of the project, but these statements did not advance that interest.

Ulterior Motives. Evidence of an ulterior motive may cause a party to lose protection of the common interest privilege. In some cases, it is because an ulterior motive is evidence of bad faith and thus abuse by common law malice. For example, in Douglas Electric Corp. v. Grace, 70 Ohio App. 3d 7 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990), an electrical contractor warned a construction company about an alleged kickback scheme involving its employee and another electrical contractor. The Court held that, even if a qualified privilege applied, there was evidence of its abuse, to wit, that the defendant's real motive was not to advance a common interest, but to pressure the plaintiff to pay a disputed invoice relating to another project. In other cases, an ulterior motive simply helps to demonstrate that the interests involved are not mutual. In Teare v. United Assoc. of Journeymen & Apprentices, 98 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 1957), a union met with building owners and disparaged the non-union plumber the owners had hired. The Court held that the statements were not privileged because there was no mutuality of interest between the union reps and the owners. The Court rejected the union's argument that both had a mutual interest in "plumbing." Rather, the union's interest was to promote the union, an interest that the owners did not share.

Reckless investigations. Even in situations usually protected by the common interest privilege, evidence that the statements in question were based on a faulty investigation may show that the defendant was reckless with respect to the truth, and thus abused the privilege. In Twelker v. Shannon & Wilson, 564 P. 2d 1131 (Wash. 1977), a landslide damaged a building only two months after its completion, and the building's insurer retained a soil engineer to investigate. The engineer's report allegedly included false statements about the plaintiff (another soil engineer who worked on the original construction). The Court held that there was sufficient evidence of actual malice to survive summary judgment, including certain inaccuracies on the face of the engineer's report and also an expert opinion that the engineer's limited investigation was not sufficient to form a professional opinion about the plaintiff's work.

Statements About Competitors. By far the most inconsistent application of the common interest privilege is with respect to statements by contractors about their competitors during a bidding process. Such situations often give rise to the suspicion of an ulterior motive. One example is 360 Construction v. Atsalis Bros. Painting Co., 915 F. Supp. 2d 883 (E.D. Mich. 2012), in which the plaintiff won the contract to paint and clean the Mackinac Bridge, causing the losing bidder allegedly to initiate a smear campaign falsely linking the plaintiff to unrelated criminal matters. The Court held that the common interest privilege did not apply, in part because there was evidence of an ulterior motive: advancement of the defendant's business interests. Moreover, the Court opined that "the blanket extension of the qualified privilege to any communication between a contractor and a public agency would encourage ceaseless rounds of accusation and counter-accusation between competitors." However, it should be noted that the court in English Boiler & Tube v. W.C. Rouse & Son, Inc., 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 2725 (4th Cir. 1999), adopted a different approach for public projects. The defendant, an unsuccessful bidder for a boiler installation subcontract at a state university, sent several letters to the school documenting the successful bidder's poor work on other projects. The Court held that the defendant had a qualified privilege to make these statements because the defendant and school (and by extension, the public at large) shared a common interest in accountability for government expenditures. In a somewhat defensive footnote, the Court denied that it was establishing a privilege for "every statement made about a potential government contractor by a competitor," but didn't go out of its way to explain where it was drawing the line.

Takeaway Points

So, if there are circumstances in which you are making a negative or potentially defamatory statement about another participant on a building project, whether you are protected by the common interest privilege will depend on your jurisdiction and on the answers to the following questions:

  • What is the common interest? Make sure you are able to articulate a specific common interest in the project that you share with the person to whom you make the statement. It is not enough that the speaker or the recipient of the information is tangentially related to the project (e.g., a neighbor or a local union). Rather, the parties to the statement should be working towards a mutual goal, and ideally will be bound by a common law or contractual duty to share information (e.g., an architect's duty to a building owner, or a contractor's duty to the bond issuer). A general industry-wide interest in safety or integrity likely will not be protected. Moreover, statements to the press or to the public at large rarely fall within the privilege.
  • Does the statement advance the interest? Even if there is a common interest, the statement must actually advance that interest. A statement advances a common interest if the recipient of the statement can act on the information to further that interest. If an architect tells an owner that a contractor is about to use substandard materials, that statement probably advances their common interest and can be acted upon to prevent a problem. On the other hand, gratuitous disparagement of a party who is not working on the project in question will not usually advance any common interest.
  • Have I done my homework? Even if your statement clearly falls under the common interest privilege, that is not a license to defame. The best practice is to make sure that statements about the quality of another's work are based on specific articulable facts. If you are only making a guess based on the available information and/or your professional judgment, say so and be specific about what information is missing. Otherwise, a court is more likely to find that your investigation was reckless, thus satisfying the test for "actual malice" abuse.
  • Is this about a competitor? Take special precautions whenever a statement concerns one of your competitors. In those cases, there is a significant danger that the plaintiff will argue that you competitive interest constitutes an ulterior motive. Before throwing caution to the wind and jumping in head first, consult with a legal professional about the risks and governing law in your jurisdiction.

To view Foley Hoag's Trademark and Copyright Law Blog please click here

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
25 Oct 2017, Webinar, Boston, United States

Foley Hoag will present a 60-minute webinar on Wednesday, October 25 at 12:30 pm EDT, offering guidance for in-house counsel regarding the basics of trademark and design protection in the European Union. Attendees will learn about the opportunities and pitfalls to be on the lookout for when looking to secure, protect, and enforce an IP portfolio overseas.

1 Nov 2017, Webinar, Boston, United States

Please join Foley Hoag on Wednesday, November 1, 2017 for a webinar that covers the details of drafting an appropriate arbitration clause for your company’s commercial contracts.

9 Nov 2017, Conference, Waltham, United States

Please join us on Thursday, November 9 at the Westin Waltham Hotel for our quarterly New England M&A Forum, which brings the latest in market trends and recent legal developments to the New England M&A professionals' community.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.