Opinion ID: 2567337
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: qualified privilege for employer-employee communications

Text: ¶ 52 Clear Channel urges us to uphold the district court's summary judgment ruling with respect to Benedict, even if we disagree with the court's reasoning, on the alternative theory that Wayment failed to produce evidence that Benedict acted with common law malice. Clear Channel argues that evidence of common law malice is required to overcome the qualified privilege that, it asserts, protected any communications between Benedict and Clear Channel employees in which Benedict made defamatory statements. ¶ 53 Whether a publication is conditionally privileged is a question of law . . . , unless a genuine factual issue exists regarding whether the scope of the qualified privilege has been transcended or the defendant acted with malice. Brehany v. Nordstrom, Inc., 812 P.2d 49, 58 (Utah 1991). Evidence of malice in this context may include indications that the publisher made [the statements] with ill will, [that the statements] were excessively published, or [that the publisher] did not reasonably believe his or her statements. Russell v. Thomson Newspapers, Inc., 842 P.2d 896, 905 (Utah 1992); see also Combes v. Montgomery Ward & Co. , 119 Utah 407, 228 P.2d 272, 275 (1951) (relying on authority requiring the employer to have 'an honest belief in the truth of the statement' (quoting Harrison v. Garrett, 132 N.C. 172, 43 S.E. 594, 596 (1903))); Hales v. Commercial Bank, 114 Utah 186, 197 P.2d 910, 913 (1948) (`The publisher's lack of belief in the truth of the defamatory matter published, or his lack of reasonable grounds for so believing, while immaterial to the existence of the privileged occasion, is important as constituting an abuse of the occasion which deprives him of the protection which it would otherwise afford.' (quoting Restatement of Torts § 594 cmt. b (1938))). [19] ¶ 54 Here, we believe the record contains sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of fact regarding whether Benedict reasonably believed in the truth of his communication, assuming it occurred. [20] Accordingly, we decline Clear Channel's invitation to apply the employer-employee qualified privilege as an independent basis for affirming the district court's ruling with respect to Benedict.