PADMA RAO v. MORGAN CHASE BANK KIEFER KRAUSE (2025)

ORDER

Defendant-Appellee J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc on September 10, 2025. No judge in regular active service has requested a vote on the petition for rehearing en banc, and all members of the panel have voted to deny the petition for rehearing. The petition therefore is DENIED. The opinion issued on August 27, 2025, is amended as follows:

The first full sentence on page 15 is amended to read:

Because Chase does not offer an alternative reasonable interpretation of Krause's statements, it cannot prevail as a matter of law under the innocent construction rule.

Additionally, page 20, paragraph 2, is amended to read:

Because we conclude that Chase cannot prevail under the innocent construction rule as a matter of law, and that there are genuine issues of material fact about whether Krause abused his qualified privilege, a jury must determine “whether the statement was in fact understood to be defamatory or to refer to the plaintiff.” Tuite, 866 N.E.2d 114 at 122.

Mary M. Rowland, Judge.