SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Virginia Case Summary

Bennett v. Lundh
Virginia Court of Appeals
No. 0364-24-2

Decided: June 17, 2025

Plaintiffs are required to plead the verbatim statements on which a defamatory claim is based.

Background

In August of 2022, Plaintiff attended a work trip with the Defendant. After a dinner, Defendant allegedly bumped into Plaintiff, leading to a physical altercation between the two. Upon returning from the work trip, Plaintiff’s employer counseled him about drinking excessively on work trips. Plaintiff later received a disciplinary notice that did not name Defendant, but cited several interactions between Plaintiff and Defendant. Ultimately, Plaintiff’s employer removed him from the federal contract on which he was working, stating that Plaintiff had physically and psychologically harassed a colleague. Plaintiff believed that Defendant spread rumors about him and the incident that occurred on the work trip, leading to his dismissal from the contract.

Plaintiff sued for defamation. Plaintiff alleged that “[Defendant] published false and defamatory statements of and concerning [Plaintiff],” and that “[Defendant’s] defamatory statements were read and/or heard by one or more third parties . . . .” However, Plaintiff’s Complaint failed to specify the exact statements Defendant allegedly published. Defendant petitioned the Trial Court for a Bill of Particulars, which the Court granted. The Circuit Court gave Plaintiff 21 days to set forth the following: (1) the exact statements upon which he based his claim; (2) the speaker of each statement; (3) the date of publication of each statement; and (4) to whom each statement was published. Plaintiff did not file the Bill of Particulars. Defendant demurred to the Complaint for failing to plead the exact statements and for failing to file the Bill of Particulars. The trial court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the Complaint with prejudice. Plaintiff appealed.

Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court’s analysis focused on Virginia’s heightened pleading requirements for defamation. Virginia Courts have consistently held that a Complaint must cite the exact words which give rise to a defamation cause of action. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that he should have until the close of pre-trial discovery to supply the exact wording of the alleged defamatory statements. However, the Court of Appeals found that it would frustrate the Courts’ gatekeeping functions to allow Plaintiff to evade the demurrer through non-specific allegations. The Court found that a key purpose of the exact-words requirement is to allow a defendant to challenge the legal validity of a defamation claim on demurrer.

Questions about this case can be directed to Nicolette DeFrank at (571) 470-0395 or ndefrank@tthlaw.com.