Fair Report Privilege Protects Reports of Insurance Fraud

Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gqGZ88qd and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4250 posts.

Posted on June 8, 2022 by Barry Zalma

I will not be posting for a week after this but you have available more than 4250 posts and more than 400 videos at rumble.com/zalma.

Fox Television Stations, LLC (Fox), William Melugin, Daniel Leighton, and Kris Knutsen (collectively, the Fox defendants) appealed from orders denying their special motions to strike (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16; anti-SLAPP statute) the complaint filed by Dr. Jay W. Calvert, a nationally recognized plastic surgeon, and Jay Calvert, M.D., Professional Corporation (the professional corporation) (collectively, the Calvert plaintiffs). In Jay W. Calvert et al. v. Fox Television Stations, LLC et al., B310772, California Court of Appeals, (May 25, 2022) the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision.

FACTS

This case arises from the Fox defendants broadcasting and publishing news reports about a civil lawsuit filed against Dr. Calvert by his former patient Natalie West alleging insurance fraud and medical battery. In response, the Calvert plaintiffs sued the Fox defendants and Houston for defamation. The trial court found that although the defamation claims arose from protected activity, the Calvert plaintiffs had shown a probability of prevailing on their claims.

DISCUSSION

A cause of action arising from an act in furtherance of a defendant’s constitutional right of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue is subject to a special motion to strike unless the plaintiff demonstrates a probability of prevailing on the claim.

The Law of Defamation

The elements of a defamation claim are (a) a publication that is (b) false, (c) defamatory, and (d) unprivileged, and that (e) has a natural tendency to injure or that causes special damage. 

The Trial Court Erred in Denying the Fox Defendants’ Special Motion To Strike the Complaint as to Dr. Calvert’s Claims.

The fair report privilege protects most of the challenged statements by West, Hakala, and Melugin regarding West’s allegations against Dr. Calvert

Most of the statements made by Melugin, West, and Hakala pertaining to West’s second amended complaint are privileged. The trial court, therefore, erred in failing to grant the Fox defendants’ special motion to strike as to these statements in the complaint.

Judgment on behalf of Plaintiff was reversed and Fox recovered its costs.

ZALMA OPINION

This case made clear the immunity created by Civil Code Section 47 since it applies to the press and to any SIU investigator who makes a report of a suspected insurance fraud to the state. PeoThe immunity is absolute.

(c) 2022 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

Subscribe to Zalma on Insurance at locals.com https://lnkd.in/gn5WAi6C.