 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Buckhannon v. U.S. West Communications Inc.3/21/1996
r relief for extreme and outrageous conduct, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and civil conspiracy. U.S. West moved for summary judgment.
The trial court granted summary judgment for U.S. West on Buckhannon's libel and slander claims and his claims for extreme and outrageous conduct and tortious interference with contractual relations. Additionally, the court found that Buckhannon was collaterally estopped from asserting his claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process, based on one of the factual determinations made by the arbitrator in the sanctions arbitration. Finally, the trial court dismissed the civil conspiracy claim because of its dependency on the survival of the underlying claims.
Buckhannon does not appeal any issues relating to the dismissal of his claims for libel and slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, extreme and outrageous conduct, and civil conspiracy. Thus, the remaining issues to be determined in this appeal are those which relate to his claims for intentional interference with contractual relations, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. See Worley v. Sancetta, 540 P.2d 355 (Colo. App. 1975) (not selected for official publication) (issues not presented or argued on appeal are abandoned).
II.
Summary judgment is proper only if the record establishes that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Persichini v. Brad Ragan, Inc., 735 P.2d 168 (Colo. 1987). Applying that standard here, we agree with the trial court that Buckhannon's claim of intentional interference with contractual relations was insufficient to survive U.S. West's motion for summary judgment.
Buckhannon asserts that U.S. West intentionally interfered with his contractual relations with Monarch when employees in U.S. West's legal department made defamatory statements to Monarch's claims personnel during U.S. West's preparation for the personal injury suit. He argues that U.S. West deliberately tried to undermine his receipt of disability benefits by telling Monarch he was guilty of fraud and that U.S. West's comments were designed to instigate legal action between Buckhannon and Monarch. Except for his allegations of malicious prosecution and abuse of process, all of Buckhannon's claims in this case stemmed from the same conduct on the part of U.S. West: telling Monarch that his claim was fraudulent.
However, as noted by the trial court, the statements to Monarch concerning Buckhannon were communications preliminary to a proposed judicial proceeding, were related to the proceeding, and were thus absolutely privileged. We agree with this Conclusion, and agree with the trial court that application of this privilege entitled U.S. West to dismissal of the intentional interference claim.
In Club Valencia Homeowners Ass'n v. Valencia Associates, 712 P.2d 1024 (Colo. App. 1985), a division of this court addressed this issue and concluded that attorneys are absolutely privileged to make defamatory remarks during preparation for a judicial proceeding so long as the remarks have some relation to the proceeding.
Although Buckhannon does not dispute application of the defense of absolute privilege to his prior defamation claims, he does argue that the absolute privilege does not apply to his intentional interference with contractual relations claim. In his view, U.S. West's allegations of "fraud, immorality and criminal conduct" do not fall under the umbrella of permissible communications. He argues that the statements were unsolicited and constituted a literal i
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Colorado Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|