A Springfield federal judge has sliced $1 million from an award a Quincy University tennis coach could receive from a former Quincy men's tennis player who allegedly lied about claims the coach had a sexual relationship with a female player.
But the judge said the former player still owes the coach nearly $2 million after a jury agreed the player had smeared the coach's name and reputation with the allegedly false accusations.
On May 2, U.S. District Judge Sue Myserscough refused to toss out the jury verdict against defendant Daniel R. Lozier II in the case brought by QU head tennis coach Brian Holzgrafe.
Holzgrafe had filed suit against Lozier in 2019 in Central District of Illinois federal court, accusing the former QU men's tennis player of defamation and false light.
According to court documents, Quincy University launched an investigation in 2017 against Holzgrafe, based on accusations that the coach had engaged in an improper sexual relationship with a women's tennis player, allegedly while on spring break.
According to court documents, Lozier had allegedly told these accusations against Holzgrafe to his mother and his girlfriend. Despite allegedly telling her son to "keep his mouth shut," his mother allegedly called the university and reported the rumor.
According to court documents, the unidentified female tennis player at the center of the scandal was friends with Lozier's girlfriend. When the tennis player learned of the rumors, a "confrontation during tennis practice" reportedly made the rumor "more public."
According to court documents, Lozier had testified to university officials against Holzgrafe.
Both Lozier and Holzgrafe left Quincy University following the investigation.
In 2018, Lozier had first sued the university and Holzgrafe, asserting they had retaliated against him for cooperating with the investigation.
A year later, however, Holzgrafe sued Lozier in a counterclaim, accusing Lozier of lying about Holzgrafe, accusing the coach "willfully, maliciously, purposefully, and deliberately," despite allegedly knowing the accusations were false.
Lozier settled his legal fight with the university for $400,000 and dropped his claims against Holzgrafe in 2022.
However, Holzgrafe and Lozier went to trial in April 2024 over Holzgrafe's sole remaining claim for defamation.
After a four-day trial, a jury found in favor of Holzgrafe and ordered Lozier to pay him more than $2 million in compensatory damages and an additional $874,000 in punitive damages.
Punitive damages are extra payouts tacked on as a form of additional punishment for the alleged conduct or to deter the defendant or others from acting similarly in the future.
Following the verdict, Lozier asked the court to toss out the verdict and either enter judgment in Lozier's favor or grant a new trial.
Lozier also asked the court to reduce the damages ordered by the jury, arguing they were excessive.
In her ruling, Myerscough refused to toss out the jury verdict, saying Holzgrafe had presented enough "evidence ... to support the jury's finding" and its decision to order Lozier to pay Holzgrafe compensatory and punitive damages.
Myerscough, however, said she believed the jury's award of compensatory damages was too steep.
She agreed Holzgrafe had shown the accusations and resulting investigation "proved (Holzgrafe) was no longer able to coach student athletes at the collegiate or club level, lost his part time job, was humiliated in the public's eyes, and was accused of cheating on his wife with a student he coached."
But Myerscough said she believed a $2 million compensatory damages award in a case in which "there was no physical injury is indeed excessive."
She ordered the compensatory damages reduced by half to $1 million.
The judge, though, refused to vacate or reduce the $874,000 punitive damages award, saying she believed they were not excessive, given the harm inflicted by the alleged defamation and the size of the compensatory damages award.
"The jury was presented with evidence of Defendant's actions and his financial information. Using that information, the jury decided to punish Defendant for his behavior. That is the purpose of a punitive damages award, and this Court will not second-guess the jury's decision as to punitive damages," Myerscough wrote.