730 S.E.2d 305
S.C.2012Background
- Fountain sued Ewart, First Reliance, and Pennell for defamation over a statement that First Reliance would not loan if Fountain was involved.
- Fountain and Pennell sought financing to refinance a $1.2 million Carolina First Bank mortgage and to buy out a partner; Fountain would manage the store.
- Ewart, as First Reliance’s chief banking officer, told Pennell the loan would not be made if Fountain were involved; Pennell relayed this to Fountain.
- Fountain had a prior troubled business history, including a failed BoJo Tim venture and related judgments.
- Pennell and Fountain faced denials from two lenders before approaching First Reliance; Fountain was not present at the Ewart meeting.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, finding the statement not defamatory and protected by a qualified privilege; Fountain appeals on defamation grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Ewart’s statement defamatory? | Fountain argues the statement implied he is a poor lending risk via innuendo. | Ewart contends the statement conveys a truthful business judgment. | No defamatory meaning; statement truthful and not actionable. |
| Are Respondents entitled to a qualified privilege? | Fountain argues privilege was abused and should go to the jury. | Privilege covers statements made in good faith to protect a legitimate business interest; no abuse shown. | Qualified privilege exists and was not abused; summary judgment proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fleming v. Rose, 350 S.C. 488 (S.C. 2002) (defamation standard and four elements; actionability per se vs. not)
- Adams v. Daily Telegraph Co., 292 S.C. 273 (Ct.App.1986) (reasonable construction needed for innuendo)
- Parrish v. Allison, 376 S.C. 308 (Ct.App.2007) (innocent defamation via innuendo evidence)
- Goodwin v. Kennedy, 347 S.C. 30 (Ct.App.2001) (slander per se categories; actionable per se framework)
- Erickson v. Jones Street Publishers, L.L.C., 368 S.C. 444 (S.C. 2006) (defamation elements; per se vs. innuendo)
- Swinton Creek Nursery v. Edisto Farm Credit, ACA, 334 S.C. 469 (S.C. 1999) (qualified privilege scope and abuse; evidence of exceeding scope)
- Woodward v. S.C. Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 277 S.C. 29 (S.C. 1981) (abuse of privilege; court may decide if no factual dispute)
- Timmons v. News & Press, Inc., 232 S.C. 639 (S.C. 1958) (defamation and innuendo concepts)
- Conwell v. Spur Oil Co. of W.S.C., 240 S.C. 170 (S.C. 1962) (scope of privilege and proper occasion)