Kunst v. Loree, 817 S.E.2d 295

Plaintiff Scott Kunst sued David Loree for slander (defamation), alleging Loree told vendors/subcontractors that Kunst stole/embezzled client funds and committed other criminal acts during an investigation of Kunst’s work on the Gabys’ home.
Loree, hired by the Gabys to investigate unpaid vendors/subcontractors, contacted multiple third parties; some witnesses testified Loree accused Kunst of taking client money and using false invoices; Loree disputed making or recalling some statements and introduced invoices/letters showing unpaid subcontractors.
The Gabys had earlier sued Kunst; that litigation resulted in default judgment and damages against Kunst, and Kunst’s counterclaims against the Gabys were dismissed as compulsory/collaterally estopped; Kunst’s suit against Loree proceeded separately and the defamation claim went to jury trial in 2015.
The jury found for Kunst and awarded $1,000,000 in actual damages on slander-per-se claims; the circuit court denied Loree’s motions for directed verdict, JNOV, and new trial; Loree appealed.
On appeal the court reviewed whether (1) evidence supported slander per se, (2) Loree established defenses of truth or qualified privilege, and (3) the damages award was excessive.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Kunst)	Defendant's Argument (Loree)	Held
Whether statements were slander per se	Statements accused Kunst of theft/embezzlement and thus charged a crime of moral turpitude	Statements were investigatory concerns, not defamatory per se	Held: Statements alleging theft were actionable per se; evidence supported jury finding
Whether Loree proved substantial truth of statements	Kunst disputed falsity; damages and malice presumed for per se slander	Loree produced invoices and testimony aiming to prove unpaid subcontractors and misappropriation	Held: Credibility conflicts created jury question; JNOV denied — truth not established as matter of law
Whether statements were protected by qualified privilege	Kunst argued privilege was abused/exceeded by discussing other clients	Loree argued communications to vendors/subcontractors during investigation were privileged	Held: Privilege existed for the Gaby investigation scope but was exceeded when Loree implicated Kunst’s dealings with other clients; jury could find abuse
Whether $1,000,000 award was excessive	Kunst maintained damages from reputational and economic loss supported award	Loree contended award was grossly excessive and unsupported by evidence	Held: Award not excessive; evidence of lost projects, debt, reputational harm supported jury verdict; trial court did not abuse discretion

Swinton Creek Nursery v. Edisto Farm Credit, ACA, 334 S.C. 469 (appellate review standard on sufficiency of evidence and jury findings)
Fountain v. First Reliance Bank, 398 S.C. 434 (defamation elements and slander per se analysis)
McBride v. Sch. Dist. of Greenville Cty., 389 S.C. 546 (defamation and credibility conflicts for jury)
Bell v. Bank of Abbeville, 208 S.C. 490 (qualified privilege: occasion and relation of parties)
Castine v. Castine, 403 S.C. 259 (truth as affirmative defense; occasions raising privilege are questions of law)
Abofreka v. Alston Tobacco Co., 288 S.C. 122 (qualified privilege limited to proper parties and subject matter)
Miller v. City of West Columbia, 322 S.C. 224 (deference to jury on damages; standards for excessive verdict)
Sanders v. Prince, 304 S.C. 236 (example of remittitur/new trial for allegedly excessive verdict)