Defamation is a Covered Personal Injury Tortious Interference with Business Is Not<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\nPost 5031<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\nSee the full video at https:\/\/rumble.com\/v6r6ge6-fortuity-required-for-defense.html\u00a0<\/a> and at https:\/\/youtu.be\/iA4Mu2AYkFY<\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/zalma.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Defamation-tortious-interference.png?resize=640%2C360\")
Robert Hole, M.D., appealed from the March 3, 2023 order granting plaintiff State Farm Fire and Casualty Company\u2019s motion for summary judgment denying Dr. Hole coverage under the policy issued by State Farm.<\/p>\n
In State Farm Fire And Casualty Company v. Dr. Robert Hole, M.D., and Dr. Michael Russonella, D.O., and North Jersey Orthopaedic And Sports Medicine Institute, LLC,<\/em> No. A-2522-22, Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division (March 21, 2025) a\u00a0 lawsuit filed against Dr. Hole by Michael Russonella, D.O. that alleged Dr. Hole made false statements regarding Dr. Russonella\u2019s alleged misconduct at St. Mary\u2019s Hospital in Passaic.<\/p>\nDr. Hole sought coverage from his insurer, State Farm, to defend the action. The central question in this matter is whether State Farm was required to defend the action and indemnify Dr. Hole once the tortious interference count was the only remaining claim.<\/p>\n
Initially Dr. Russonella sued Dr. Hole only alleging defamation. State Farm defended Dr. Hole under a reservation of rights.\u00a0Because of the potential for an excess verdict and the punitive damages alleged, the letter also advised Dr. Hole of his right to obtain personal counsel and that State Farm\u2019s \u201cdefense of this action by the attorney on your behalf is not to be considered a waiver of such policy defense or of any policy defenses which may be involved in this suit.\u201d<\/p>\n
In September 2017, the trial court dismissed Dr. Russonella\u2019s defamation complaint as untimely under the statute of limitations.\u00a0 Dr. Russonella subsequently filed an amended complaint alleging tortious interference with business.<\/p>\n
State Farm sued seeking declaratory relief claiming it had no duty to defend or indemnify Dr. Hole regarding the claims asserted by Dr. Russonella. It asserted Dr. Russonella alleged Dr. Hole \u201cintentionally \u201cinterfered with his business relationships. State Farm further asserted that in allegedly making \u201cuntrue\u201d and \u201cmalicious[]\u201d statements \u201ctargeted to injure Dr\u2026. Russonella\u201d that Dr. Hole knew were \u201cuntrue,\u201d \u201cthe policy exclusion for personal and advertising injury arising out of oral or written publication of material . . . with knowledge of its falsity precludes coverage.\u201d<\/p>\n
When the facts present a single, unavoidable resolution and the evidence is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law, then a trial court should grant summary judgment. \u00a0Dr. Hole argued a tortious interference claim \u201cdoes not require an intention to cause the injury alleged.\u201d Rather, he asserts \u201cthe intent required in tortious interference claims is an intent to interfere.\u201d<\/p>\n
ANALYSIS<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\nThe interpretation of an insurance policy, like any contract, is a question of law.<\/p>\n
Coverage provisions are to be read broadly, exclusions are to be read narrowly, potential ambiguities must be resolved in favor of the insured, and the policy is to be read in a manner that fulfills the insured\u2019s reasonable expectations. By contrast, if the plain language of the policy is unambiguous, the court will not engage in a strained construction to support the imposition of liability or write a better policy for the insured than the one purchased.<\/p>\n
A complaint based on tortious interference must allege facts claiming that the interference was done intentionally and with \u201cmalice\u201d.\u00a0 Malice is defined to mean that the harm was inflicted intentionally and without justification or excuse.<\/p>\n
A tortious interference cause of action is an excluded claim because not only does the tort require intentional interference, it also further requires malice or an intent that the harm was inflicted intentionally. That is, the tortious interference claim intrinsically includes an intent to harm.<\/p>\n
The Appellate Division concluded that trial court did not err in concluding Dr. Hole was not entitled to coverage under the State Farm policy.<\/p>\n
Even though State Farm initially provided a defense for the defamation claim, it was not required to also defend Dr. Hole because the amended complaint for tortious interference alleged similar facts but supported intentional conduct.<\/p>\n
Liability insurance provides defense and\/or indemnity only for fortuitous conduct. Intentional acts are excluded by every liability insurance policy since providing such coverage would encourage wrongful or illegal conduct. The court concluded, properly, that although the defamation claim was a fortuitous loss the tortious interference claim required intentional conduct, was not fortuitous, and State Farm was entitled to a judgment it owed no defense or indemnity to Dr. Hole after it successfully protected him from the Defamation claim.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/zalma.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/BZTHEA.png?resize=300%2C282\")
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.<\/p>\n
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.<\/p>\n
Subscribe to my substack at https:\/\/barryzalma.substack.com\/subscribe<\/a><\/p>\nGo to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https:\/\/www.newsbreak.com\/@c\/1653419?s=01;<\/a> Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https:\/\/rumble.com\/account\/content?type=all;<\/a> Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg<\/a><\/p>\nGo to the Insurance Claims Library \u2013 https:\/\/lnkd.in\/gwEYk<\/a><\/p>\n\nLike this:<\/h3>\n
See the full video at https:\/\/rumble.com\/v6r6ge6-fortuity-required-for-defense.html\u00a0<\/a> and at https:\/\/youtu.be\/iA4Mu2AYkFY<\/a><\/p>\n In State Farm Fire And Casualty Company v. Dr. Robert Hole, M.D., and Dr. Michael Russonella, D.O., and North Jersey Orthopaedic And Sports Medicine Institute, LLC,<\/em> No. A-2522-22, Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division (March 21, 2025) a\u00a0 lawsuit filed against Dr. Hole by Michael Russonella, D.O. that alleged Dr. Hole made false statements regarding Dr. Russonella\u2019s alleged misconduct at St. Mary\u2019s Hospital in Passaic.<\/p>\n Dr. Hole sought coverage from his insurer, State Farm, to defend the action. The central question in this matter is whether State Farm was required to defend the action and indemnify Dr. Hole once the tortious interference count was the only remaining claim.<\/p>\n Initially Dr. Russonella sued Dr. Hole only alleging defamation. State Farm defended Dr. Hole under a reservation of rights.\u00a0Because of the potential for an excess verdict and the punitive damages alleged, the letter also advised Dr. Hole of his right to obtain personal counsel and that State Farm\u2019s \u201cdefense of this action by the attorney on your behalf is not to be considered a waiver of such policy defense or of any policy defenses which may be involved in this suit.\u201d<\/p>\n In September 2017, the trial court dismissed Dr. Russonella\u2019s defamation complaint as untimely under the statute of limitations.\u00a0 Dr. Russonella subsequently filed an amended complaint alleging tortious interference with business.<\/p>\n State Farm sued seeking declaratory relief claiming it had no duty to defend or indemnify Dr. Hole regarding the claims asserted by Dr. Russonella. It asserted Dr. Russonella alleged Dr. Hole \u201cintentionally \u201cinterfered with his business relationships. State Farm further asserted that in allegedly making \u201cuntrue\u201d and \u201cmalicious[]\u201d statements \u201ctargeted to injure Dr\u2026. Russonella\u201d that Dr. Hole knew were \u201cuntrue,\u201d \u201cthe policy exclusion for personal and advertising injury arising out of oral or written publication of material . . . with knowledge of its falsity precludes coverage.\u201d<\/p>\n When the facts present a single, unavoidable resolution and the evidence is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law, then a trial court should grant summary judgment. \u00a0Dr. Hole argued a tortious interference claim \u201cdoes not require an intention to cause the injury alleged.\u201d Rather, he asserts \u201cthe intent required in tortious interference claims is an intent to interfere.\u201d<\/p>\n The interpretation of an insurance policy, like any contract, is a question of law.<\/p>\n Coverage provisions are to be read broadly, exclusions are to be read narrowly, potential ambiguities must be resolved in favor of the insured, and the policy is to be read in a manner that fulfills the insured\u2019s reasonable expectations. By contrast, if the plain language of the policy is unambiguous, the court will not engage in a strained construction to support the imposition of liability or write a better policy for the insured than the one purchased.<\/p>\n A complaint based on tortious interference must allege facts claiming that the interference was done intentionally and with \u201cmalice\u201d.\u00a0 Malice is defined to mean that the harm was inflicted intentionally and without justification or excuse.<\/p>\n A tortious interference cause of action is an excluded claim because not only does the tort require intentional interference, it also further requires malice or an intent that the harm was inflicted intentionally. That is, the tortious interference claim intrinsically includes an intent to harm.<\/p>\n The Appellate Division concluded that trial court did not err in concluding Dr. Hole was not entitled to coverage under the State Farm policy.<\/p>\n Even though State Farm initially provided a defense for the defamation claim, it was not required to also defend Dr. Hole because the amended complaint for tortious interference alleged similar facts but supported intentional conduct.<\/p>\n Liability insurance provides defense and\/or indemnity only for fortuitous conduct. Intentional acts are excluded by every liability insurance policy since providing such coverage would encourage wrongful or illegal conduct. The court concluded, properly, that although the defamation claim was a fortuitous loss the tortious interference claim required intentional conduct, was not fortuitous, and State Farm was entitled to a judgment it owed no defense or indemnity to Dr. Hole after it successfully protected him from the Defamation claim.<\/p>\n Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.<\/p>\n Subscribe to my substack at https:\/\/barryzalma.substack.com\/subscribe<\/a><\/p>\n Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https:\/\/www.newsbreak.com\/@c\/1653419?s=01;<\/a> Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https:\/\/rumble.com\/account\/content?type=all;<\/a> Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg<\/a><\/p>\n Go to the Insurance Claims Library \u2013 https:\/\/lnkd.in\/gwEYk<\/a><\/p>\nRobert Hole, M.D., appealed from the March 3, 2023 order granting plaintiff State Farm Fire and Casualty Company\u2019s motion for summary judgment denying Dr. Hole coverage under the policy issued by State Farm.<\/p>\nANALYSIS<\/span><\/strong><\/h2>\n
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.<\/p>\nLike this:<\/h3>\n