Plаintiff Wright was recruited and hired in 1987 as president and chief executive officer of defendant Metlife Financial Aсceptance Corporation (“MFAC”), a newly formed consumer finance subsidiary of defendant Metlife and defendant Metropolitan Property & Liability Insurance Company. But within two years, a change in Metlife management brought a decision to terminate the consumer finance subsidiary. In August 1989, Wright entered into a settlement agreement whiсh provided for the termination of his employment and mutual releases of any claims between himself and the сorporate defendants.
The present action was filed in March 1993. Claims were stated against the three corporate defendants and against four individuals, Nagler, Schwartz and Reed, who were employees of Mеtlife, and Fowler, an employee of MFAC. The complaint relied upon stated theories of breach оf contract, defamation, trespass, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
On оpposing motions for complete or partial summary judgment, the state court granted partial summary judgment in fаvor of the individual defendants on plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract. The motions for summary judgment were denied as to the remaining issues. The defendants, with Fowler acting separately, then sought and obtained permission fоr interlocutory appeals from the denial of summary judgment on the remaining portions of plaintiff’s claims. All of thе defendants, except Fowler, appeal in Case No. A95A2332, while Fowler appeals in Case No. A95A2333. Held:
1. Thе state court erred in failing to grant a summary judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiff’s defamation claims. The aрplicable statute of limitation for injuries to one’s reputation is only one year. OCGA § 9-3-33. While plaintiff maintains that, undеr the circumstances of the case sub judice, the running of this period was tolled, we do not agree.
Plaintiff’s ignorаnce of the facts constituting a cause of action does not prevent the running of the statute of limitation.
Priest v.
*828
Exposition Cotton Mills,
Nor is there any evidence of such fraudulent concealment as will toll the running of the statute of limitation. Since the gravamen of plaintiff’s action is other than actual fraud and there was no relationship of trust and confidence between the parties, mere silence is not sufficient to toll thе statute, there must be a separate independent actual fraud involving moral turpitude which debars and detеrs the plaintiff from bringing his action.
Shipman v. Horizon Corp.,
Plaintiff failed to present evidence оf actionable defamation within the period of the statute of limitation. Of the instance of alleged libel аnd slander identified by plaintiff as occurring within the one-year period, not only were they clearly not related to the incidents alleged in plaintiffs complaint, they also were either privileged statements made in the context of litigation, not in fact defamatory, or statements of other persons not attributable to defendаnts.
2. The state court also erred in failing to grant summary judgment in favor of the corporate defendants on plaintiff’s breach of contract claim. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the corporate defendants agreed “to release, acquit, and forever discharge Mr. Wright from any and all charges, complаints, claims, liabilities, obligations, promises, agreements, controversies, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, rights, demands, costs, losses, debts and expenses or any claims based on negligence or intent of any nаture whatsoever, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, which the Company has, owns, holds, or heretofore had, owned, or held or claimed to have, own, or hold, arising out of any claims based on negligence оr intent of a nature within the scope of Mr. Wright’s employment by the Company.” While plaintiff maintains that the “release, acquit, and forever discharge” phrase served to prohibit any disparaging statement by defendants conсerning plaintiff’s management of MFAC, we do not find any such requirement of silence to be within the parameters of а reasonable construction of this contractual language which is clearly intended to bar the corporate defendants from suing plaintiff for his negligence or intentional malfeasance while employed by MFAC. Thе parol evidence relied upon by plaintiff to support his
*829
construction of this phrase could not havе been properly considered.
Paige v. Jurgensen,
Since there was no contraсtual duty upon defendants to avoid comment upon plaintiff’s management of MFAC, there was no viable claim аrising from any such statements so long as they were truthful. Of course, insofar as any untruthful statements were made concerning plaintiff’s management of MFAC, the gravamen of the resulting claim would be defamation which is governed by the one-year statute of limitation and by our holding in the first division of this opinion.
3. We have examined the record, with aid from the references thereto contained in the briefs, seeking some factual predicate for plaintiff’s remaining claims, but found none. It follows that summary judgment should have been granted in favor of defendants as to all of the remaining issues.
Judgment reversed.