[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

Arises not from what is stated but from what is implied when a defendant

1. Juxtaposes a series of facts so as to imply a defamatory connection between them; or
2. Creates a defamatory implication by omitting facts, such that he may be held responsible for the defamatory implication.

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']

Arises not from what is stated but from what is implied when a defendant

1. Juxtaposes a series of facts so as to imply a defamatory connection between them; or
2. Creates a defamatory implication by omitting facts, such that he may be held responsible for the defamatory implication.

Defamation by implication arises, not from what is stated, but from what is implied. The defamatory language must not only be reasonably read to impart the false innuendo; it must also affirmatively suggest that the author intend or endorse the implication. Jews For Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp, 997 So. 2d 1098, 1107-08 (Fla. 2008).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: Jews For Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp, 997 So. 2d 1098, 1107-08 (Fla. 2008).

First District: Gannet Co., Inc. v. Anderson, 947 So. 2d 1, 11 (Fla 1st DCA 2006) (stating that a “claim of libel can also be asserted on the theory that the defamatory fact was implied”), aff’d, 994 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 2008); Brown v. Tallahassee Democrat, Inc., 440 So.2d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (reversing trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint that defendant published plaintiff’s photograph in a story about a murder in which the plaintiff was not involved but the juxtaposition of the photograph implied his association with the murder).

Second District: Pep Boys v. New World Commc’ns of Tampa, Inc., 711 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (reversing dismissal of plaintiff’s defamation claim based on statements made by news station that implied defendant had made unnecessary repairs to car’s air conditioning).

Third District: Readon v. WPLG, LLC, 317 So.3d 1229, 1237 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021); Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. Ane, 423 So.2d 376 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (affirming the trial court’s decision to hold the defendant liable for libel when defendant implied in a newspaper article that plaintiff was involved in a three ton marijuana transaction that was busted by police).

Fourth District: Alexander v. Trump, 404 So. 3d 425, 428 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025)(concurrence); Anson v. Paxson Commc’ns Corp., 736 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)(reversing dismissal of plaintiff’s defamation claim based on statements on a radio talk show that implied plaintiff was a drug using teenage homosexual prostitute).

Fifth District: Boyles v. Mid-Fla. Television Corp., 431 So.2d 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (reversing dismissal of libel per se claim based on statements that implied that plaintiff was suspect in the death of the child, was a habitual tormentor of retarded patients, and had raped a patient in his care), aff’d, 467 So.2d 282 (Fla. 1985).

FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

Eleventh Circuit: Utterback v. Morris, No. 24-12947, 2025 WL 1455900, at *4 (11th Cir. May 21, 2025); Jacoby v. Cable News Network, Inc., 2021 WL 5858569, *3 (11^th Cir. Dec. 10, 2021); Parekh v. CBS Corp., 820 Fed.Appx. 827, 835 (11th Cir. 2020); Klayman v. City Pages, 650 Fed.Appx. 744, 749 (11th Cir. 2016).

Southern District: Martinez v. Netflix, Inc., 2023 WL 2630337, *3 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 23, 2023); Rubinstein v. Ourian, 2021 WL 4134753, *5 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 10, 2021);    Bongino v. Daily Beast Co., LLC, 477 F. Supp. 3d 1310, 1319 (S.D. Fla. 2020); Plain Bay Sales, LLC v. Gallaher, No. 9:18-CV-80581-WM, 2020 WL 5750499, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 25, 2020).

Middle District: Melendez v. Hamilton, No. 6:23-CV-2337-WWB-RMN, 2024 WL 5672322, at *3 (M.D. Fla. June 24, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, No. 6:23-CV-2337-WWB-RMN, 2024 WL 5672325 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 9, 2024); Zimmerman v. Buttigieg, 521 F.Supp.3d 1197, 1211 (M.D. Fla. 2021); Sloan v. Shatner, No. 8:17-CV-332-T-27AAS, 2017 WL 3332232, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 3, 2017).

Northern District: Utterback v. Morris, No. 5:23-CV-279-TKW/MJF, 2024 WL 3809368, at *3 (N.D. Fla. July 24, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, No. 5:23-CV-279-TKW-MJF, 2024 WL 3799423 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 12, 2024); Folta v. New York Times Co.,  No. 1:17cv246-MW/GRJ, 2019 WL 1486776, at *9 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 27, 2019); Jeter v. McKeithen, No. 5:14–cv–00189–RS–EMT., 2014 WL 4996247, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 7, 2014).

REFERENCES

Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 558, 580(B) (1977)

---

2 Defenses to Claim for Defamation by Implication

2 Defenses to Claim for Defamation by Implication

(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. Friedman v. Schiano, 777 Fed.Appx. 324, 334 n. 16 (11th Cir. 2019); Ramos v. Mami Herald Co., 132 So.3d 1236, 1236-37 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014); Lipsig v. Ramlawi, 760 So.2d 170, 180 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2000). 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) Public officials are entitled to absolute immunity for all statements made within the scope of the officer’s duties, regardless of how false or malicious or badly motivated the statements. Hauser v. Urchisin, 231 So.2d 6, 8 (Fla. 1970); Quintero v. Diaz, 300 So.3d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020); Washington v. Miami-Dade Cty., No. 19-20092-CIV-MORENO, 2019 WL 7049931, at *3 (S.D. Fla. December 23, 2019); Turner v. Wells¸879 F.3d 1254, 1272 (11th Cir. 2018); Alexander v. Trump, 404 So. 3d 425, 433-34 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025)(concurrence).

(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). However, the privilege can be overcome by establishing that the individual acted with express malice in making the defamatory statements. Id; see also Lozada v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 702 Fed.Appx. 904, 911 (11th Cir. Fla. 2017).

(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), aff’d,  879 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2018); Alexander v. Trump, 404 So. 3d 425, 428 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025)(concurrence); Utterback v. Morris, No. 24-12947, 2025 WL 1455900, at *3 (11th Cir. May 21, 2025).

(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. Florida 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) Under Florida law, there is a “well-settled rule prohibiting injunctive relief in defamation cases.” See Santilli v. Van Erp, No. 8:17-cv-1797-T-33MAP, 2018 WL 2172554, at *3 (M.D. Fla. April 20, 2018).

(13) § 770.01, Fla. Stat., requires five (5) days notice to a defendant prior to filing a libel suit.

(14) Florida’s Anti-SLAPP statute (Section 768.295, Fla. Stat.) protects the exercise of the right of “free speech in connection with public issues,” provides that “[i]t is the public policy of this state that a person or governmental entity not engage in SLAPP suits because such actions are inconsistent with the right of persons to exercise such constitutional rights of free speech in connection with public issues,” and affords “[a] person or entity sued by a governmental entity or another person in violation of this section has a right to an expeditious resolution of a claim that the suit is in violation of [Florida’s Anti-SLAPP statute].” Section 768.295(1) and (4), Fla. Stat.  See also Gundel v. AV Homes, Inc., 264 So. 3d 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)(detailing the substantive and procedural aspects of Florida’s Anti-SLAPP Statute).

[/MM_Access_Decision]