Opinion ID: 200225
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Grabill's Statement Regarding the Existence of Other Unreported Allegations

Text: 27 The district court held that the second allegedly defamatory statement, that Grabill told Donovan that the existence of three known allegations automatically implies the existence of other unreported ones, is not actionable because it is a nonactionable statement of opinion. We agree. 28 [A] statement of opinion is not actionable unless it may reasonably be understood to imply the existence of defamatory fact as the basis for the opinion. Nash, 498 A.2d at 351 (internal citations omitted). See Gray v. St. Martin's Press, Inc., 221 F.3d 243, 248 (1st Cir.2000) (stating that a statement is not actionable if it is plain that the speaker is expressing a subjective view, an interpretation, a theory, conjecture, or surmise, rather than claiming to be in possession of objectively verifiable facts). As the district court explained, Grabill did not express an opinion that implied his knowledge of additional facts but merely offered a general theory-his belief-that in a case such as this, the number of known allegations automatically implied the existence of some larger number of actual incidents. Grabill's statement is merely his own speculation. No person could reasonably understand that statement to imply that Grabill had actual knowledge of additional incidents or complaints. Viewing the allegation in the light most favorable to Moss, we agree with the district court that the statement is an opinion and not actionable. 29