People ex re Alzayat v. Hebb, No. E066471 (D4d2 Dec. 19, 2017)
In this case, Plaintiff has brought a qui tam case alleging that his employer and a supervisor violated the Insurance Frauds Prevention Act by making false statements in an incident report and lying in a deposition in worker’s comp proceeding. Generally, that kind of statement is protected by the litigation privilege in Civil Code 47(b). But the Court here finds that the IFPA is a specific statuary scheme that foresees assigning liability based on false statements made in connection with, among other things, workers’ comp proceedings. Under those circumstances, § 47(b) would make the IFPA inoperable in significant part. When that happens, courts have found § 47(b)’s general privilege to yield to the more specific statutory scheme where the Legislature expressed an intent that liability for the statement should, in fact, apply.
Reversed.
In this case, Plaintiff has brought a qui tam case alleging that his employer and a supervisor violated the Insurance Frauds Prevention Act by making false statements in an incident report and lying in a deposition in worker’s comp proceeding. Generally, that kind of statement is protected by the litigation privilege in Civil Code 47(b). But the Court here finds that the IFPA is a specific statuary scheme that foresees assigning liability based on false statements made in connection with, among other things, workers’ comp proceedings. Under those circumstances, § 47(b) would make the IFPA inoperable in significant part. When that happens, courts have found § 47(b)’s general privilege to yield to the more specific statutory scheme where the Legislature expressed an intent that liability for the statement should, in fact, apply.
Reversed.