Opinion ID: 2404290
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Defamation Count

Text: Shah charged respondents defamed him by stating that he was intolerant and prejudiced toward management personnel and had expressed derogatory opinions of management to members of the labor union, causing management to be held in contempt and subject to ridicule. In his tendered but unfiled amendment he added the claim that the respondents charged him with being a spy for Michelin Rubber Corporation. He sought compensatory and punitive damage as well as an injunction against continued publication. ASRC denied these allegations and asserted truth and privilege as affirmative defenses. The trial court found the alleged defamatory statements were privileged, and that Shah failed to show that the statements were untrue or malicious. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that there was a genuine issue of fact concerning malice, which, if proved, would deprive respondents of the qualified privilege. See Holdaway Drugs, Inc. v. Braden, Ky., 582 S.W.2d 646 (1979). The Summary Judgment entered by the trial court was proper only in the absence of a genuine and material issue of fact concerning the qualified privilege. Murphy v. Taxicabs of Louisville, Inc., supra . Shah asserts the statements were uttered with malice and introduced the testimony of Ray Sword, a Recovery Operator at ASRC, to support his allegation. Respondents deny any malice, raising an issue of fact. The issue of malice is material since the qualified privilege would be lost if the statements were published with malice. Holdaway Drugs, Inc. v. Braden, supra, at 649.