Hui v. Sturbaum

(Adjuster’s Statements to Department of Insurance and Plaintiff’s Counsel Constitute Protected Activity Under Anti-SLAPP Law and are Privileged Under Civil Code Section 47)

In Hui v. Sturbaum, 222 Cal.App.4th 1109 (January 9, 2014), the California First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order dismissing a defamation lawsuit against insurance adjuster, Beth Sturbaum, in connection with her comments to the California Department of Insurance (“DOI”) regarding a treating chiropractor, Dr. Anthony K. Hui, and a plaintiff’s counsel, regarding Dr. Hui’s chiropractic practice. The DOI had contacted Sturbaum in connection with its investigation of Dr. Hui’s billing practices. Based on her review of Dr. Hui’s bills in connection with certain personal injury claims, Sturbaum cooperated with the DOI and provided it with information. Further, in connection with adjusting a personal injury claim, Sturbaum advised a plaintiff’s counsel that the supporting bills submitted by Dr. Hui were fraudulent. Consequently, plaintiff’s counsel brought Sturbaum’s comments to Dr. Hui’s attention. Thereafter, he filed a first amended complaint suing Sturbaum for defamation. In response, Sturbaum filed a motion to strike Hui’s complaint pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.1 6 (anti-SLAPP law) and California Civil Code section 47 (common interest privilege). The trial court granted Sturbaum’s motion and issued an order dismissing Dr. Hui’s complaint against Sturbaum.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision finding that Sturbaum’s communications with the DOI were absolutely privileged. In addition, the Court of Appeal held that Sturbaum’s comments to plaintiff’s counsel related to an issue of wide spread public interest, i.e., insurance fraud. Hence, such comments were protected by the common interest privilege codified in Section 47, subdivision c.