[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

1. Defendant made a false and defamatory statement;
2. Defendant published (written or orally) to a third party;
3. Defendant made the defamatory statement with the requisite intent (negligence or malice); and
4. Plaintiff suffered damages.

Subscribers To The Florida Litigation Guide Can See:

• The rest of the elements for this cause of action;
• The citations to the most recent state and federal court cases citing the cause of action;
• The statute of limitations; and
• The defenses to this cause of action.

Click Here To See A Sample Chapter From The Guide

Subscribe to The Florida Litigation Guide To Access Everything!

[/MM_Access_Decision] [MM_Access_Decision access='true']

1. Defendant made a false and defamatory statement;
2. Defendant published (written or orally) to a third party;
3. Defendant made the defamatory statement with the requisite intent (negligence or malice); and
4. Plaintiff suffered damages.

Libel is a written defamatory statement. See Hay v. Indep. Newspapers, Inc., 450 So.2d 293, 294-295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Slander is a spoken defamatory statement. See Axelrod v. Califano, 357 So.2d 1048, 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). A defamation claim against a private person requires negligence. See Miami Herald Publ’g Co. v. Ane, 423 So.2d 376, 383 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), citing Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 347 (1974). A defamation claim against a public figure requires publication with actual malice and in reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s rights. See Seropian v. Forman, 652 So.2d 490, 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), citing New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-280 (1964).

Injurious Falsehood is a cause of action akin to defamation. See Salit v. Ruden, McCloskey, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A., 742 So.2d 381, 386-387, n.3 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 623A-652 (1977).

---

FLORIDA STATE COURTS

Supreme Court: Internet Sols. Corp. v. Marshall, 39 So. 3d 1201, 1214 n.8 (Fla. 2010); Jews For Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp, 997 So. 2d 1098, 1106 (Fla. 2008).

First District: Linafelt v. Beverly Enters.-Fla., Inc., 745 So.2d 386, 388 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).


Second District: Kieffer v. Atheists of Fla., Inc., 269 So. 3d 656, 659 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019); Bass v. Rivera, 826 So.2d 534, 534 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).


Third District: Readon v. WPLG, LLC, 317 So.3d 1229, 1234 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021); de Castro v. Stoddard, 314 So. 3d 397, 402-03 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).


Fourth District: Lowery v. McBee, 322 So.3d 110, 114 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2021); Diocese of Palm Beach, Inc. v. Gallagher, 249 So. 3d 657, 662 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).


Fifth District:  Scholz v. RDV Sports, Inc., 710 So.2d 618, 625 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), reh’g. denied, 718 So.2d 618 (Fla. 1998).

FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

Eleventh Circuit: Parekh v. CBS Corp., 820 F. App’x 827, 833 (11th Cir. 2020); Turner v. Wells, 879 F.3d 1254, 1262 (11th Cir. 2018).


Southern District: Trump v. Clinton, 2022 WL 4119433, *22 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 8, 2022); Wound Care Concepts, Inc. v. Vohra Health Servs., P.A., 2022 WL 320952, *14 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 28, 2022); ADT LLC v. Vivant Smart Home, Inc., 2021 WL 4478932, *2 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2021);   Rubinson v. Rubinson, 474 F. Supp. 3d 1270, 1274 (S.D. Fla. 2020). 


Middle District: Markle v. Markle, 2023 WL 2711341, *12 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2023); Centennial Bank v. Servisfirst Bank Inc., No. 8:16-CV-88-CEH-CPT, 2021 WL 915121, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 10, 2021); Music With Mar, LLC v. Mr. Froggy’s Friends, Inc., No. 8:20-CV-1091-T-33AAS, 2020 WL 7768941, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 30, 2020).


Northern District: Johnson v. Darnell, No. 1:17-CV-87-MW-GRJ, 2018 WL 3672759, at *9 (N.D. Fla. July 13, 2018); Meyer v. Franklin, No. 1:15-CV-185-MW-GRJ, 2016 WL 944421, at *11 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 25, 2016).</br />

FLORIDA REFERENCES

Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 558, 580(B) (1965)

---

2 Defenses to Claim for Injurious Falsehood

(1) Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other standard defenses. See § 1.

(2) Statute of Limitations: § 95.11(4)(g), Fla. Stat. (two years).

(3) Truth is an affirmative to defamation claims. When combined with good motive, truth is a complete defense. Lipsig v. Ramlawi, 760 So. 2d 170, 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Turner v. Wells, 198 F. Supp. 3d 1355, 1365 (S.D. Fla. 2016). See also Art. I, § 4, Fla. Const.

(4) Statements made during a judicial proceeding are absolutely privileged, provided that such statements are related to the proceeding’s subject matter. See Levin, Middlebrooks v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So.2d 606, 607 (Fla. 1994) (absolute privilege extends to parties, witnesses, counsel, and judges).

(5) Absolute privilege extends to statements made during labor grievance proceedings, provided that such statements are related to the proceeding’s subject matter. See Hope v. Nat. Alliance Jacksonville, 320, 649 So.2d 897, 900 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

(6) Absolute privilege protects statements made by government officials in connection with their official duties. Hauser v. Urchisin, 231 So.2d 6, 8 (Fla. 1970); Childrens v. Fla. Gulf Coast Univ. Bd. of Tr., No: 2:15–cv–722–FtM–MRM, 2017 WL 1196575, at *11 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2017).

(7) Qualified privilege protects defamatory statements made by private individuals to the police or the state’s attorney prior to the institution of criminal charges. Fridovich v. Fridovich, 598 So.2d 65, 69 (Fla. 1992).

(8) Qualified privilege protects defamatory statements that are published by a speaker in good faith, pursuant to a duty or special interest, and such privilege is not abused. Nodar v. Galdbreath, 462 So.2d 803, 809 (Fla. 1984).

(9) Statements of pure opinion based on known facts do not give rise to defamation claims. See Miami Child’s World, Inc. v. Sunbeam Television Corp., 669 So.2d 336, 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Turner v. Wells, 198 F. Supp. 3d 1355, 1365 (S.D. Fla. 2016).

(10) Minor inconsistencies in news reports are not actionable provided that the report is substantially true and the inaccuracies did not result from deliberate falsification or awareness of probable falsity. Newton v. Fla. Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 447 So.2d 906, 907 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

(11) Employers who disclose information about former employees are immune from civil liability if the communication is made in good faith, and such presumption is not rebutted by showing that information “knowingly false or deliberately misleading, was rendered with malicious purpose, or violated any civil right of the former employee protected under chapter 760’’. § 768.095, Fla. Stat.

(12) § 770.01, Fla. Stat., requires five (5) days notice to a defendant prior to filing a libel suit.

(13) Florida law recognizes the doctrine of defamation by implication, wherein literally true statements can be defamatory where they create a false impression. See Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp, 997 SO.2d 1098, 1108 (Fla. 2008) (“[I]f the defendant juxtaposes a series of facts so as to imply a defamatory connection between them, or creates a defamatory implication by omitting facts, he may be held responsible for the defamatory implication, unless it qualifies as an opinion, even though the particular facts are correct.”).

[/MM_Access_Decision]