Are you sure you want to report this content?
Procedural Posture
Plaintiff insurance underwriter filed an action based on unfair competition, accomplished by means of defamation and wrongful interference with a prospective business relationship against defendants insurer and officers in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County (California). The trial court awarded the underwriter nominal damages of one dollar and costs of suit and the underwriter appealed. Corporate attorney in orange county, California .
Overview
The underwriter appealed that that portion of the trial court's judgment which denied it compensatory damages, punitive damages or injunctive relief. The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding that there were no facts warranting punitive or exemplary damages and that the acts of the insurer and officers were without actual malice. The court further held that the trial court's refusal to grant the requested injunction was not an abuse of discretion and that its expressed findings that a letter and attached circular contained statements that were untrue and constituted actionable libel were not inconsistent with the finding that the underwriter suffered no actual damage. The court finally held that the record in the case was more than sufficient to support the trial court's finding that it did not appear from the evidence that, except for the wrongful acts of the insurer and officers, there was a reasonable probability that the underwriter would have qualified to engage in the insurance business as attorney in fact. The court concluded that there was no reasonable basis upon which general damages could be awarded.
Outcome
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment.
Overview
HOLDINGS: [1]-Only one of a dentist's defamation claims, which arose from alleged statements characterizing the dentist's work as substandard, was subject to an anti-SLAPP special motion to strike because statements allegedly made to the dentist's employer furthered a public discussion about professional competence and, as such, qualified as protected speech in connection with an issue of public interest under Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16, subd. (e)(4), but other alleged statements that were not shown to have been communicated to the public or to anyone with authority over the dentist did not contribute to a public discussion; [2]-As to the claim alleging defamatory statements made to the dentist's employer, a probability of prevailing was not shown because the dentist did not present evidence establishing that the alleged conversation had occurred, and the claim thus had to be stricken.
Outcome
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
11 Launches
Part of the Life collection
Updated on March 08, 2021
(0)
Characters left :
Category
You can edit published STORIES
Are you sure you want to delete this opinion?
Are you sure you want to delete this reply?
Are you sure you want to report this content?
This content has been reported as inappropriate. Our team will look into it ASAP. Thank You!
By signing up you agree to Launchora's Terms & Policies.
By signing up you agree to Launchora's Terms & Policies.