Not exactly what the court held. The court did not hold that an insurer that reports a doc for professional misconduct is immune from a defamation suit. The court held that NY Public Health Law ยง 230 (11) (b) does not create a private right of action for defamation. The unanimous opinion notes that “although the issue is not before us, the parties are in agreement that the very same allegations that could support a cause of action under section 230 (11) (b), if one existed, might also support a defamation claim when the identity of the claimant is known.” The plaintiff’s common law defamation cause of action was dismissed as time-barred.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Not exactly what the court held. The court did not hold that an insurer that reports a doc for professional misconduct is immune from a defamation suit. The court held that NY Public Health Law ยง 230 (11) (b) does not create a private right of action for defamation. The unanimous opinion notes that “although the issue is not before us, the parties are in agreement that the very same allegations that could support a cause of action under section 230 (11) (b), if one existed, might also support a defamation claim when the identity of the claimant is known.” The plaintiff’s common law defamation cause of action was dismissed as time-barred.